Skip to main content

Full text of "The trial of Sir Roger Casement"

See other formats


I 


Iflotable 


Sir  Roger  Casement 


NOTABLE  TRIALS   SERIES. 

Madeleine  Smith.    Edited  by  A.  Duncan  Smith, 

Advocate. 
Dr.  Pritchard.    Edited  by  William  Roughead. 

The  Statmtons.    Edited  by  J.  B.  Allay,  Barrister- 
at-Law. 

Franz  Muller.    Edited  by  H.  B.  Irving. 
The  Annesley  Case*     Edited  by  Andrew  Lang. 
Lord  Lovat.    Edited  by  David  N.  Mackay. 
Captain  Porteous.     Edited  by  William  Roughead. 
William  Palmer.     Edited  by  Geo.    H.   Knott, 

Barrister-at-Law. 

Mrs.  Maybrick.    Edited  by  H.  B.  Irving. 
Dr.  Lamson.     Edited  by  H.  L.  Adam. 
Mary  Blandy.     Edited  by  William  Roughead. 
City  of  Glasgow  Bank  Directors.     Edited  by 

William  Wallace,  Advocate. 
Deacon  Brodie.    Edited  by  William  Roughead. 
James  Stewart.    Edited  by  David  N.  Mackay. 
A.  J.  Monson.     Edited  by  J.  W.  More,  Advocate. 
Oscar  Slater.     Edited  by  William  Roughead. 
Eugene  Marie  Chantrelle.    Edited  by  A.  Duncan 

Smith,  Advocate. 
The  Douglas  Cause.      Edited    by  A.  Francis 

Steuart,  Advocate. 

Mrs.  M'Lachlan       Edited  by  William  Roughead. 
Eugene    Aram.       Edited    by    Eric    Watson, 

Barrister-at-Law. 

J.    A.    Dickman.       Edited    by    S.   O.   Rowan- 
Hamilton,  Barrister-at-Law. 
The  Seddons.     Edited  by  Filson  Young. 


IN  PREPARATION. 
The  Wainwrights.     Edited  by  H.  B.  Irving. 
H.  H.  Crippen.     Edited  by  Filson  Young. 
Thurtell  and  Hunt.     Edited  by  Eric  Watson. 

Particulars  may  be  had  from  the  Publishers. 


(From  a  photograph  taken  in  Berlin.) 

Roger  Casement. 


Trial  of 

Sir  Roger  Casement 


EDITED    BY 

George  H.  Knott,  M.A.(Edin.) 

OF  THE  MIDDLE  TEMPLE,  BARRISTER-AT  LAW 


TORONTO 
CANADA    LAW    BOOK    COMPANY,    LIMITED 


PRINTED  BY 

WILLIAM  HODGE  AND  COMPANY 

GLASGOW  AND  EDINBURGH 

1917 


TO 

THE    RIGHT    HONOURABLE    VISCOUNT    READING 

LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE  OF  ENGLAND 

WHO  PRESIDED  AT  THE  TRIAL  OF  ROGER  CASEMENT 

FOR  HIGH  TREASON 

AND  TO 

THE    HONOURABLE    MR.    JUSTICE    DARLING 

WHO  PRESIDED  AT  THE   HEARING  OF  THE  APPEAL 
IN  THE  COURT  OF  CRIMINAL  APPEAL 

THIS  BOOK  IS 

BY  THEIR -KIND  PERMISSION 
RESPECTFULLY   DEDICATED 

BY 

••        .. 

THE  EDITOR 


PEEFACE. 

THIS  report  of  the  trial  of  Roger  Casement  for  high  treason,  and  of  the 
appeal  to  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal,  is  based  on  the  transcript  of  the 
notes  taken  by  the  Government  shorthand  writers  each  day  of  the 
proceedings.  It  is  a  verbatim  report,  except  for  such  parts  of  it  as  are 
of  a  more  or  less  formal  character,  where  the  direct  narrative  form  is 
followed  instead  of  that  of  question  and  answer.  The  report  has  also  had 
the  additional  advantage  of  being  read  by  Viscount  Reading,  the  Lord 
Chief  Justice,  who  presided  at  the  trial,  and  by  his  colleagues,  Mr.  Justice 
Avory  and  Mr.  Justice  Horridge.  Mr.  Justice  Darling,  who  presided  at 
the  proceedings  in  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal,  has  also  read  the  report 
of  the  judgment  of  that  Court  which  was  delivered  by  him.  The  Attorney- 
General,  Sir  Frederick  Smith,  has  revised  the  report  of  his  speeches.  For 
the  photograph  of  Roger  Casement  which  appears  as  the  frontispiece  of 
this  book  the  Editor  is  indebted  to  Mr.  Michael  Francis  Doyle,  of  the 
American  Bar,  who  assisted  the  defence  throughout  the  proceedings,  both 
at  the  trial  and  in  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal.  The  interest  of  this 
photograph  is  that  it  was  taken  in  Germany  at  the  time  when  Casement 
was  engaged  in  the  mission  which  ultimately  led  him  to  trial  and  the 
scaffold. 

Numerous  documents  and  photographs  will  be  found  throughout  the 
work  and  in  the  Appendices,  relating  to  the  persons  who  were  engaged  in 
the  proceedings,  or  to  things  which  were  produced  as  evidence  at  the  trial. 
Material  of  a  personal  nature  relative  to  Casement  which  is  available  at 
present  to  a  would-be  biographer  is  very  scanty.  Hardly  anything  has 
been  made  public  except  the  formal  record  of  his  career  in  the  service  of 
the  British  Government,  which  was  set  out  in  the  opening  speech  of  the 
Attorney- General.  Perhaps  no  one  so  notorious  was  ever  so  little  known 
in  his  private  character.  Amongst  the  documents  in  the  Appendices  to 
which  attention  may  be  drawn  are  the  petitions  which  were  presented  by 
numerous  persons,  animated  by  various  motives,  for  the  commutation  of 
the  sentence.  For  these  the  Editor  is  indebted  to  Clement  Shorter,  Esq. 

It  remains  only  for  the  Editor  to  express  his  thanks  to  Viscount 
Reading,  Lord  Chief  Justice,  and  Mr.  Justice  Darling,  who  have  accepted 
the  joint  dedication  to  them  of  this  record  of  a  famous  historic  trial  in 
which  they  respectively  played  such  distinguished  parts. 

G.  H.  K. 
THE  LIBRARY, 

MIDDLE  TEMPLE, 

23rd  June,  1917. 


CONTENTS. 


Introduction,  - 
Table  of  Dates, 
L— THE  TRIAL, 


PAGE 

xiii 
xl 

1 


Opening  Speech  for  the  Prosecution, 


The  Attorney-General, 


Evidence  for  the  Prosecution. 


John  Cronin, 16 

Daniel  O'Brien,  22 

John  Robinson,  25 

William  Egan,        -  29 

Michael  O'Connor,  32 

Michael  Moore,       -  -       33 

John  Neill,     -  35 

Michael  Hussey,     -  -       43 

John  McCarthy,      -  -       44 

Mary  Gorman,        -  -       46 

Thomas  John  Hearn,  47 

Bernard  Riley,  52 

Martin  Collins,       -  -       54 

Frederick  Ambrose  Britten,  -  -       55 

Motion  to  Quash  Indictment, 


Robert  William  Larke,  57 

James  Butler,         -  57 

Frederick  Whittaker,  58 

Thomas  Bracken,    -  58 

Joseph  Sandercock,         -  59 

Sydney  Ray  Waghorn,  -  59 

John  Dempsey,       ...  60 

Colonel  Nicholas  T.  Belaiew,  61 
Lieut. -Col.  Philip  James  Gordon,  -       62 

Maurice  Moriarty,  64 

George  Carter,        -  64 

Daniel  O'Donnell,  -  64 

Edward  Parker,     ...  64 

William  Egan  (recalled),  65 

-      67 


Judgments  on  Motion  to  Quash  Indictment. 


The  Lord  Chief  Justice, 
Mr.  Justice  Avory,  - 
Mr.  Justice  Horridge, 


Statement  by  the  Prisoner, 


124 
130 
133 

133 


Closing  Speeches  for  the  Prisoner. 


Mr.  Serjeant  Sullivan, 
Mr.  Artemus  Jones, 


135 
156 


CONTENTS. 

Closing  Speech  for  the  Grown. 

PAGE 

The  Attorney-General, 163 


The  Lord  Chief  Justice's  Summing  Up,  178 

Verdict,     -                                                                                                      ...  197 

Statement  by  the  Prisoner,      -  197 

Sentence, 205 


II.— THE  APPEAL,  207 

Speech  by  Mr.  Serjeant  Sullivan, 208 


Judgment  in  Appeal  Proceedings. 
Mr.  Justice  Darling,  280 

APPENDICES — 

I.  Print  of  Productions,  ....     289 

II.  Petitions  presented  for  commutation  of  sentence,     -         ....     298 


LIST    OF    ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Roger  Casement, Frontispiece. 

The  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  England,  Viscount  Reading,      -        -  facing  page  2 

Railway  Ticket  from  Berlin,  ,,          14 

Boat  found  by  M'Carthy,  of  Curraghane,     ...  ,,44 

Part  of  the  Diary  (page  1),    -  ,,48 

Part  of  the  Secret  Code,  ,,          54 

Mr.  Michael  Francis  Doyle,  -  ,,66 

Part  of  the  Diary  (page  2),  -  ,,176 

Writing  on  Back  of  the  Code,  ,,        192 

Mr.  Justice  Darling,               - ,,208 


SIR    ROGER    CASEMENT. 


INTRODUCTION. 

IN  the  latter  part  of  the  month,  of  April,  1916,  the  papers  contained  the 
news  that  Sir  Roger  David  Casement  had  been  arrested  by  the  Irish  police 
on  the  Kerry  coast  near  Tralee  Bay,  where  he  had  landed  with  several 
companions,  in  circumstances  indicating  an  attempt  to  run  men,  arms,  and 
ammunition  with  the  intention  of  raising  rebellion  in  Ireland.  Casement 
had  been  employed  in  the  Consular  Service  for  twenty-one  years,  and  in 
1913  he  had  retired  on  a  pension.  In  January,  1911,  he  had  been 
knighted,  and  during  the  years  1909  to  1912,  while  Consul-General  at  Riode 
Janeiro,  he  had  been  employed  in  making  inquiries  into  what  were  known 
as  the  Putumayo  atrocities,  and  he  was  in  consequence  very  conspicuous 
in  the  public  view.  During  all  these  years  nothing  was  known  of  him  to 
suggest  that  he  was  connected  with  any  of  the  popular  movements  in 
Ireland.  In  the  latter  part  of  1914  and  the  early  part  of  1915  Casement 
was  reported  to  be  moving  about  freely  and  publicly  in  Germany,  and 
appearing  to  be  treated  by  the  German  Government  as  a  very  privileged 
person.  He  was  reported,  too,  to  have  been  amongst  the  Irish  prisoners 
in  the  camps,  and  as  having  made  speeches  to  them.  If  the  British 
Government  knew  how  Casement  happened  to  be  in  Germany,  no  disclosure 
was  made,  nor  has  at  any  time  been  made,  public.  The  Government  may 
not  have  received  accurate  information  as  to  Casement's  proceedings  in 
the  German  camps  until,  in  February,  1916,  eome  of  the  Irish  prisoners 
were  exchanged,  and  came  home,  and  their  narratives  then  became  avail- 
able for  whatever  subsequent  events  might  happen.  In  view  of  the 
events  which  did  follow,  especially  the  trial  for  treason  which  this  book 
records,  the  remark  may  be  made  that  it  was  with  singular  indifference 
to  the  interests  of  Sir  Roger  Casement  that  the  German  authorities  allowed 
the  exchange  of  the  very  prisoners  who  could  tell  the  whole  story  of  the 
happenings  in  Germany. 

For  the  time  being,  however,  it  was  sufficiently  startling  to  hear  that 
a  British  subject,  and  a  former  official  of  the  Government,  could  be  engaged 
in  an  enterprise,  whatever  it  might  be,  which  bore  on  its  face  the  ugly 
look  of  treachery  and  treason.  Had  the  fulsome  letter  which  Casement 
wrote  to  Sir  Edward  Grey  acknowledging  the  honour  of  his  knighthood 
been  known  at  the  time  of  his  German  enterprise,  it  would  have  increased 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


the  anger  and  contempt  felt  for  him,  though  it  would  certainly  not  have 
lessened  the  mystification  of  his  proceedings. 

Such  was  the  person  who  was  arrested  in  Ireland  on  the  21st  of  April, 
1916,  and  such  was  the  nature  of  the  interest  which  the  public  took  in 
him.  This  interest  was  immensely  stimulated,  moreover,  by  other  facts 
which  became  known  within  a  few  days  of  the  news  of  his  arrest.  On  this 
21st  of  April  the  British  sloop  "  Bluebell/'  whilst  patrolling  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Tralee,  sighted  a  suspicious  ship  flying  the  Norwegian  ensign, 
and  with  Norwegian  ensigns  painted  on  her  sides.  The  captain  of  the 
"  Bluebell  "  had  taken  this  vessel,  which  described  herself  as  the  "  Aud," 
of  Bergen,  into  charge,  and  had  directed  her  to  follow  the  "Bluebell" 
to  Queenstown.  Arrived  off  Queenstown,  a  dramatic  scene  was  enacted. 
The  soi-disant  "  Aud  "  stopped  her  engines.  The  "  Bluebell  "  went  back 
to  her,  and  when  about  a  cable's  length  away  the  crew  of  the  "  Bluebell " 
saw  a  small  cloud  of  white  smoke  issue  from  the  "  Aud."  At  the  game 
time  two  German  ensigns  were  broken  at  her  mast,  and  two  boats  were 
lowered.  The  "  Bluebell "  fired  one  round  across  the  bows  of  the 
"  Aud,"  and  thereupon  the  boats  hoisted  two  flags  of  truce,  and  the  men 
put  up  their  hands.  They  were  then  taken  prisoners  on  board  the 
"  Bluebell,"  and  placed  under  armed  guard.  These  men  were  German 
bluejackets — nineteen  sailors  and  three  officers.  The  "  Aud  "  sank  almost 
immediately,  and  divers  found  soon  afterwards  that  she  had  carried  a 
cargo  of  rifles  and  ammunition,  the  rifles  being  Russian  rifles  of  the  1905 
pattern.  Other  even  more  surprising  events  quickly  succeeded,  and  threw 
further  light  on  the  enterprise  of  Casement  and  the  German  cruiser,  the 
"  Aud."  Casement  had  hardly  arrived  in  England,  where  he  had  been 
taken  in  custody,  when  news  arrived  from  Ireland  of  the  Sinn  Fein 
rebellion.  Then  the  connection  of  things  became  clear.  Casement 
had  landed  between  the  20th  and  21st  of  April ;  he  was  evidently  expected 
by  conspirators  who  were  plotting  rebellion ;  and  they  were  awaiting  his 
arrival  with  the  German  cruiser  carrying  the  arms  and  ammunition  which 
now  lay  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea.  On  24th  April  it  was  announced  in 
England  that  "  grave  disturbances  had  broken  out  in  Dublin."  It  is 
unnecessary  to  do  more  than  remind  the  reader  of  the  subsequent  develop- 
ments, of  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion,  and  of  the  executing  of  the 
rebels  by  courts-martial.  Had  Casement  succeeded  in  landing  himself 
and  the  cruiser  "Aud,"  without  being  intercepted,  and  had  he  arrived 
safely  amongst  his  fellow-conspirators  with  all  his  German  honours  thick 
upon  him,  it  is  probable  that  he  would  have  shared  their  summary  punish- 
ment, unless,  indeed,  the  British  Government  had  been  of  opinion  that 
in  any  event  it  was  desirable  in  the  public  interest  that  the  plotting  of 
the  German  Government  with  Casement  and  the  Irish  rebels  should  be 
xiv 


Introduction. 

made  manifest  by  a  formal  investigation  of  the  Courts  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  the  criminal  law. 

On  Casement's  arrival  in  England  he  made  to  the  metropolitan  police 
the  statement,  "  I  am  Sir  Roger  Casement,  and  the  only  person  to  whom 
"  I  have  disclosed  my  identity  is  a  priest  in  Tralee,  Ireland."  Afterwards, 
until  the  15th  May,  he  was  kept  in  military  custody  in  the  Tower  of 
London;  but  he  was  then  removed  by  a  warrant  issued  on  the  13th  May, 
and  was  brought  to  Bow  Street  Police  Station  to  hear  the  charge  which 
was  to  be  preferred  against  him. 

The  formal  charge  preferred  was  that  "  on  the  1st  day  of  November, 
"  1914,  and  on  divers  days  thereafter,  and  between  that  day  and  the  21st 
"day  of  April,  1916,  he  "  (with  a  fellow-prisoner,  Daniel  Julian  Bailey,  an 
Irish  soldier  who  had  been  interned  in  Germany  whilst  Casement  was 
there)  "  unlawfully,  maliciously,  and  traitorously  did  commit  high  treason 
"  without  the  realm  of  England  in  contempt  of  our  Sovereign  Lord  the 
' '  King  and  his  laws,  to  the  evil  example  of  all  others  in  the  like  case 
"  offending,  contrary  to  the  duty  of  the  allegiance  of  the  said  Sir  Roger 
"  Casement  to  our  said  Sovereign  Lord  the  King,  and  against  the  form 
"of  the  statute  in  suoh  case  made  and  provided." 

The  magisterial  inquiry  was  held  at  Bow  Street  on  the  15th,  16th,  and 
17th  days  of  May,  1916,  and  on  the  last  of  these  days  Casement,  who 
made  no  statement,  was  committed  for  trial. 

It  may  perhaps  be  well  to  state  here  how  and  why  it  was  that  Case- 
ment, who  had  been  arrested  in  Ireland,  was  brought  for  charge  and  trial 
to  England.  If  the  reader  turns  to  the  trial  in  the  High  Court  he  will 
find  that,  after  the  verdict  of  the  jury,  Casement  made  a  long  rhetorical 
statement  protesting  against  the  jurisdiction  of  an  English  Court  and  his 
trial  by  an  English  jury.  He  declared  that  the  Court  was  to  him,  as  an 
Irishman,  a  foreign  Court,  and  that  he  had  an  indefeasible  right,  as  an 
Irishman,  if  tried  at  all,  to  be  tried  in  Ireland  by  an  Irish  Court  and  an 
Irish  jury. 

Considered  as  a  legal  objection  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court,  this 
statement  was  quite  vain  and  baseless ;  and  it  could  not  have  been  with  the 
belief  that  it  had  any  legal  validity  that  Casement  made  his  objection. 
He  was  not  simply  an  Irishman,  but  a.  British  subject,  born  and  bred 
under  the  British  law,  and  the  only  Court  of  law  in  the  United  Kingdom, 
or  the  Dominions,  which  had  jurisdiction  to  try  him  for  treason  committed 
abroad  was  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  of  England.  In  similar  circum- 
stances no  British  subject — English,  Scottish,  Welsh,  or  Irish — could  have 
been  tried  by  any  other  Court.  His  fellow-countryman,  Dr.  Lynch,  had 
been  tried  and  convicted  in  1903  by  the  Court  of  Queen's  Bench  for 
treason  oommitted  in  South  Africa  during  the  Boer  War.  Until,  with 

XV 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

whatever  motive,   Casement  himself  declaimed  against  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Court,  no  objection  was  taken  to  it  at  any  point  of  his  trial ;  that  is 
to  say,  by  any  of  the  very  competent  counsel  who  defended  him.       So  far 
from  advancing  any  argument  or  plea  of  this   kind,    Serjeant  Sullivan, 
Casement's  leading  counsel,   a   distinguished  leader   of  the  Irish  bar,   as 
well  as  an  English  counsel,  began  his  address  to  the  jury  in  these  words, 
"  If  your  lordships  please,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  is  indeed  a  matter 
"  of  congratulation  that  such  a  trial  as  this  at  such  a  time  is  taking  place 
"  here  in  the  capital   of  your  nation  in   open   Court,    according  to  the 
' '  ordinary  process  of  law  regulating  the  lives  of  the  civil  subjects)  of  Hi® 
"  Majesty."       This  reference,  we  may  suppose,  may  have  meant  that  on 
a  charge  of  treason  committed  during  war,  in  the  country  of  the  enemy, 
it  was  not  altogether  inconceivable  that  Casement  might  have  been  tried, 
as  the  Sinn  Fein  rebels  were  tried,  under  military  law  by  a  court-martial 
on  his  arrest  in  Ireland.       Serjeant  Sullivan  may  also,  seeing  that  he  had 
addressed  so  many  arguments  to  the  Court  as  to  the  procedure  in  trials  of 
treason,  have  been  referring  to  the  fact  that  Casement  might  have  been 
tried  by  a  Commission  issued  by  the  Crown  constituting  a  special  Court, 
and  not  by  the  ordinary  Courts  of  any  of  the  countries  of  the  United 
Kingdom,    the   King's   Bench   in  England   or   Ireland,    or   the    Court   of 
Justiciary  in  Scotland.       This  power  of  the  Crown  to  appoint  a  special 
Commission  for  the  trial  of  treasons  committed  abroad  was  conferred  on 
the  Crown  by  the  statute  35  Henry  VIII.,   chapter  6;    and  this  brings 
us  to  this  statute  which  made  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  the  Court,  and 
the  only  one  of  the  regular  Courts  of  law  in  the  United  Kingdom,  which 
could  try  Casement  or  any  other  British  subject  for  this  kind  of  offence. 
We  are  not  speaking  now  as  to  the  point  whether  Casement  had,  in  fact, 
committed  any  offence  at  all.      This  was  the  only  legal  point  raised  by 
Casement's  counsel  at  the  trial  in  the  King's  Bench  and  in  the  Court  of 
Criminal  Appeal.        The   arguments    and   judgments  in   the   latter   Court 
relating  to  the  commission  of  the  offence  will  be  dealt  with  below  in  this 
Introduction.        What   we    are  concerned   with   at   present   is   the   Court 
and  the  mode   of  trial  of  the  offence  of  treason   when   it  is  committed 
abroad. 

The  statute  35  Henry  VIII.  enacts,  "  For  as  much  as  some  doubts 
"and  questions  have  been  moved  that  certain  kinds  of  treasons,  mis- 
"prisions,  and  concealments  of  treasons  done,  perpetrated,  or  committed 
"  out  of  the  King's  Majestie's  realm  of  England,  and  other  his  Grace's 
"  dominions,  cannot  by  the  common  laws  of  this  realm  be  enquired 
"  of,  heard,  and  determined  within  this  his  said  realm  of  England,  for  a 
"  plain  remedy,  order,  and  declaration  therein  to  be  had  and  made,  be 
"  it  enacted  by  authority  of  this  present  Parliament,  that  all  manner  of 


Introduction. 

<(  offences  being  already  made  or  declared  or  hereafter  to  be  made  or 
"declared  by  any  of  the  laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm  to  be  treasons, 
"  misprisiona  of  treasons,  or  concealments  of  treasons  done,  perpetrated,  or 
"  committed,  or  hereafter  to  be  done,  perpetrated,  and  committed,  by  any 
"  person  or  persons  out  of  this  realm  of  England,  shall  be  from  henceforth 
"  enquired  of,  heard,  and  determined  before  the  King's  Justices  of  his 
"  Bench  for  pleas  to  be  holden  before  himself  by  good  and  lawful  men  of 
"  the  same  shire  where  the  said  Bench  shall  sit  and  be  kept,  or  else  be 
"  before  such  Commissioners,  and  in  such  shire  of  the  realm  as  shall  be 
"  assigned  by  the  King's  Majestie's  Commission  and  by  good  and  lawful 
"men  of  the  same  shire,  in  like  manner  and  form  to  all  intents  and 
1 '  purposes  as  if  such  treasons,  misprisions  of  treasions,  or  concealments  of 
"  treasons  had  been  done,  perpetrated,  and  committed  within  the  same 
"shire  whereof  they  shall  be  so  enquired  of,  heard,  and  determined  as 
"  is  aforesaid." 

This  statute  is  still  in  force,  and  determines  the  law  as  to  the 
procedure  of  charge  and  trial  for  treasons  committed  out  of  the  realm; 
that  is,  out  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.  More- 
over, the  substantive  law  of  treason  ia  the  same  in  England,  Scotland,  and 
Ireland.  If  Casement  had  been  tried  in  Ireland  the  procedure  would  have 
been  the  same  as  here.  The  witnesses  against  him  there  would  have 
been  his  own  countrymen,  as  they  were  here.  His  pose  as  an  Irish 
patriot  wo'iild  have  led  him  equally  to  protest  against  any  existing  Irish 
Court  trying  him.  His  protest,  in  short,  can  only  be  understood  as  an 
expression  of  disappointment  and  anger  that  he  had  not  been  given  the 
better  chance  of  acquittal  which  he  would,  or  supposed  he  would,  have 
had  if  the  jury  had  been  Irish.  The  fact  of  his  arrest  in  Ireland  was 
quite  irrelevant.  Possibly  a  charge  of  treason  founded  on  acts  done  in 
Ireland  might  have  been  formulated,  but  what  he  did  there  was  perhaps 
dubious,  whereas  his  acts  in  Germany  were  indubitably  treasonable. 

At  the  magisterial  inquiry  the  Attorney-General  had  intimated  that 
it  was  very  desirable  that  the  proceedings  should  be  pushed  on  as  quickly 
as  possible.  It  was  undesirable,  considering  the  situation  of  Irish  affairs, 
and  with  Ireland  still  troubled  by  the  effects  of  a  revolution  just  suppressed, 
that  the  case  of  Casement,  the  principal  rebel,  should  be  protracted.  There 
was  much  speculation  as  to  whether,  supposing  Casement  was  convicted, 
it  would  be  possible  in  the  state  of  Irish  feeling  to  add  another  Irish 
name  to  the  long  list  of  Irishmen  who  had  already  been  executed. 

The  Government  therefore  were  quickly  ready  with  their  indictment, 

and  on  the  25th  of  May  the  Grand  Jury  of  Middlesex  and  the  county  of 

London  were  summoned  for  the  purpose  of  having  the  indictment  presented 

to  them  according  to  the  procedure  under  the  Act  of  35  Henry  VIII.,  as 

s  xvii 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


above  described.  If  tlie  reader  will  turn  to  this  document,  as  it  was  laid 
before  the  Grand  Jury,  it  will  appear  to  be  sufficiently  lengthy  and 
laboured;  yet  it  was  the  first  exemplar  of. an  indictment  for  treason  as 
simplified  by  the  new  Indictments  Act,  1915,  which  came  into  operation 
in  April,  1916,  its  laudable  aim  being  to  simplify  indictments  in  all 
kinds  of  criminal  cases.  The  sort  of  redundancies  which  were  pruned 
from  the  Casement  indictment  may  be  gathered  by  turning  to  the  indict- 
ment on  the  trial  of  Lynch  for  treason  in  1903.  The  following  clause  is 
redolent  of  the  archaisms  with  which  indictments  until  recently  abounded, 
and  which  other  forms  of  legal  documents  still  retain  in  unnecessary  exuber- 
ance. The  Grand  Jury  presented  that  Lynch,  "  being  a  subject  of  our 
"said  late  Lady  Queen  Victoria,  and  well  knowing  the  premises  aforesaid, 
"  but  not  regarding  the  duty  of  his  allegiance  nor  having  the  fear  of  God 
"  in  his  heart,  and  being  moved  and  seduced  by  the  instigation  of  the 
' '  devil,  as  a  false  traitor  against  our  said  late  Lady  Queen  Victoria,  and 
"wholly  withdrawing  the  allegiance,  fidelity,  and  obedience  which  every 
"true  and  faithful  subject  of  our  said  late  Lady  Queen  Victoria  should 
"  and  have  right  ought  to  have  borne  towards  our  said  late  Lady  Queen 
' '  Victoria,  and  contriving  and  with  all  his  strength  intending  to  aid  and 
"  assist  the  said  enemies  of  our  said  late  Lady  Queen  Victoria,  against  our 
"said  Lady  Queen  Victoria  and  her  subjects1,  heretofore  during  the  said 
"  war,  to  wit,  on  the  18th  day  of  January  in  the  year  aforesaid  at  Pretoria, 
"  in  the  territory  of  the  said  South  African  Republic,  in  parts  beyond  the 
"  seas  without  the  realm  of  England,  and  at  other  times  both  before  and 
' '  after  that  day,  as  well  at  Pretoria  as  elsewhere  within  the  territory  of  the 
' '  said  South  African  Republic,  with  force  and  arms  unlawfully,  maliciously, 
' '  and  traitorously  was  adhering  to,  aiding,  and  comforting  the  said 
"  Government  and  the  said  South  African  Republic  under  the  said  Govern- 
"  ment,  against  our  said  late  Lady  Queen  Victoria  and  her  subjects,  the 
"said  Government  of  the  said  burghers  and  men  then  being  enemies  of 
"  our  said  late  Lady  Queen  Victoria." 

In  the  last  treason  trial  before  this  of  Casement,  that  of  Ahlers,  a 
naturalised  German,  in  1914,  for  the  treason  of  adherence  to  the  King's 
enemies,  within  and  not  without  the  realm,  the  same  form  was  used. 
The  benefit  from  and  the  simplifications  of  indictments  may  be  convenient 
chiefly  to  certain  lawyer  officials  who  draw  these  documents,  and  the 
public  may  hardly  be  conscious  of  any  change,  except  from  the  suppression 
of  absurdities  of  language  which  were  wont  to  raise  a  smile  in  Court  when 
gravely  read  aloud  to  audiences  sceptical  as  to  mediaeval  views  about  the 
devil. 

The  assembling  of  twenty-three  Grand  Jurymen  for  the  purpose 
of  considering  whether  the  indictment  presented  a  prima  facie  case  against 


Introduction. 

Casement,  after  a  magisterial  inquiry  of  three  days,  with  a  resulting  com- 
mittal, may  be  considered  to  be  one  of  these  legal  anachronisms  whose 
abolition  would  be  a  public  benefit.  However,  this,  it  must  be  admitted, 
is  a  matter  of  controversy.  Conceivably  the  Grand  Jury  might  have 
considered  Casement  the  victim  of  Government  tyranny ;  might  even  have 
accepted  his  claim  to  be  of  the  antique  type  of  Irish  patriot,  and  so  have 
prevented  his  being  put  upon  trial  by  finding  "  no  bill,"  as  an  assertion 
of  the  people's  right  against  the  executive  act®  of  Government.  Instead 
of  so  doing,  after  standing  listening  for  fifty-six  minutes  to  an  address  on 
the  facts  and  the  law  from  the  Lord  Chief  Justice,  Viscount  Reading,  and 
after  an  hour's  absence,  they  returned  true  bills  both  against  Casement  and 
the  prisoner  Bailey,  who  has  been  before  mentioned. 

Then  followed  the  assignment  of  counsel  to  the  prisoner.  Casement 
was  not  present  o<n  this  occasion,  but  Mr.  Gavan  Duffy,  his  solicitor,  who 
had  appeared  for  him  at  the  Police  Court,  applied  that  counsel  might  be 
assigned,  this  being  necessary  under  the  Act  7  &  8  William  III.,  chapter  3, 
passed  in  1695-6,  known  as  the  Treason  Act,  which  allows  persons  charged 
with  treason  to  be  defended  by  counsel,  and  requires  the  Court  to  assign 
two  such  persons  as  the  accused  may  desire,  a  privilege  of  defence  which 
before  that  date  alleged  traitors  did  not  possess.  They  were  left  for 
their  defence  to  the  instigation  of  the  devil !  This  ceremony  of  assign- 
ment of  counsel  still  lingers  as  part  of  the  archaic  fringe  of  the  law 
of  treason,  and  is  not  found  in  connection  with  any  other  kind  of  trial. 

It  may  be  mentioned  that  it  is  this  same  Act  which  explains  the 
questions  put  by  the  King's  Coroner  and  Master  of  the  Crown  Office  to 
Casement,  as  to  whether  he  had  received  a  copy  of  the  indictment  and 
a  list  of  the  jurors  who  were  summoned  to  try  him ;  and  this  Act  also 
provided  that  an  indictment  must  be  found  by  a  Grand  Jury  within  three 
years  of  the  commission  of  the  treason  charged — perhaps  a  unique  privilege 
not  known  in  respect  of  crimes  other  than  treason. 

The  person  assigned  to  Casement  as  his  leading  counsel  was  Mr. 
Alexander  Sullivan,  K.C.,  the  Second  Serjeant  of  the  Irish  bar,  who  defended 
Casement  by  virtue  of  being  a  barrister  called  to  the  English  bar  in  1899, 
but  not  holding  the  rank  of  King's  Counsel  there.  As  to  his  rank  of  Second 
Serjeant  in  Ireland  it  may  be  noted  that  while  the  ancient  order  of  the  coif, 
the  Serjeants  at  Law,  who  were  once,  in  very  far  away  times,  the  only 
advocates  in  the  King'si  EnglisTi  Courts,  has  now  passed  away,  and  only 
an  individual  may  perchance  survive,  it  still  lingers  in  Ireland.  In 
Victorian  days  some  of  the  leading  advocates  were  of  the  order,  but  the 
King's  Counsel  were  becoming  the  more  common  figures1  as  the  leaders 
of  the  bar.  In  Ireland  the  office  of  Serjeant  is  also  of  great  antiquity; 
but  it  was  not  conferred  so  freely  as  in  England.  Down  to  1627  only 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


one  person  held  the  dignity  of  Serjeant,  and  he  was  known  as  the  King's 
Serjeant.  In  that  year  a  second  Serjeant  was  appointed,  and  the  senior 
Serjeant  was  styled  the  prime  Serjeant.  In  1682  a  third  Serjeant  was 
appointed;  and  the  prime  Serjeant  became  first  Serjeant.  So  that  Mr. 
Serjeant  Sullivan  is  the  second  of  a  group  of  three  of  an  ancient  order  of 
Serjeants  at  Law  at  the  Irish  bar.  No  order  of  Serjeants  at  Law  is 
known  in  Scotland. 

Mr.  Thomas  Artemus  Jones,  the  second  counsel  assigned  to  Casement, 
isi  an  able  and  well-known  barrister — a  "  rising  junior,"  to  use  a  phrase 
rather  gone  out.  Mr.  John  Hartman  Morgan  is  hardly  a  regularly  practising 
barrister;  he  is  a  Professor  of  Constitutional  Law  at  University  College, 
London,  and  a  publicist  and  journalist.  He  was  not  assigned  as  counsel,  and 
therefore  had  no  locus  standi  in  the  case ;  but  it  will  be  seen  that  at  on« 
part  of  the  proceedings  this  technical  difficulty  was  evaded  by  the  Lord 
Chief  Justice  allowing  Professor  Morgan  to  address  an  argument  to  the 
Court  as  amicus  curice.  As  to  the  counsel  who  represented  the  Crown 
it  is  not  necessary  to  do  more  than  draw  attention  to  the  references 
made  by  Casement  in  hia  statement  before  sentence  to  Sir  Frederick  E. 
Smith,  the  Attorney-General.  The  defence  on  the  facts,  as  apart  from  the 
law,  set  up  for  Casement  was  that  he  had  not  plotted  against  the 
Crown,  but  was1  intending  to  resist  the  armed  forces  that  had  been  raised 
in  Ulster  for  preventing  Home  Rule  for  Ireland.  There  was  piquancy  in 
the  fact  that  the  Attorney-General  had  taken  so  prominent  a  part  in  the 
Ulster  movement,  and  that  Casement  appealed  to  the  movement  as  an 
excuse  for  his  treason. 

The  Government  counsel  had  pressed  on  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  that 
the  trial  should  be  fixed  at  as  early  a  date  as  possible.  The  defence 
showed  some  inclination  to  put  off  the  trial  to  a  later  date  than  the  Crown 
was  inclined  to  accept,  alleging  the  necessity  of  obtaining  evidence  from 
America.  The  Lord  Chief  Justice  pointed  out  that  it  was  not  apparent 
why  witnesses  in  America  were  required.  There  was  no  satisfactory 
answer  forthcoming,  and  no  American  witnesses  were,  in  fact,  called.  A 
member  of  the  American  bar,  Mr.  Michael  Francis  Doyle,  assisted  the 
defence;  but  a  certain  mystery  remains  as  to  why  Casement  needed 
the  assistance  of  an  expert  in  American  law.  Ultimately  the 
trial  was  fixed  for  the  26th  of  June ;  and  this  was  ample  time  for  both 
sides.  The  way  had  already  been  prepared  by  the  previous  trial  of 
Lynch.  The  authorities  had  been  thoroughly  examined,  and  all  material 
collected  for  the  purposes  of  that  trial  by  the  Crown  lawyers ;  and  the 
counsel  for  Casement  had  the  benefit  of  the  reported  arguments,  arguments 
they  themselves  adopted  and  elaborated  as  they  had  been  used  for  the 
defence  in  that  case. 

XX 


Introduction. 

The  trial  was  what  is  termed  a  trial  at  bar.  By  a  kind  of  fiction 
it  is  supposed  that  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  itself,  that  is  now  the  whole 
body  of  the  common  law  judges,  sits,  as,  in  fact,  in  ancient  day®  it  did, 
to  hear  and  determine  a  case.  The  prisoner  is  at  the  bar  of  the  Court 
itself.  It  is  not  necessary  by  law  that  all  crimes  of  treason  should  be 
tried  at  bar.  The  last  of  the  treason  trials:  before  that  of  Casement  was 
the  trial  of  Ahlers,  above  mentioned,  and  he  was  tried  at  Durham  Assizes, 
and  sentenced  to  death  there  by  Mr.  Justice  Shearman,  who  sat  under  the 
Commission  by  which  the  judges  of  assize  sit.  His,  however,  wasi  a 
charge  of  treason  committed  within  the  realm,  and  it  has  already  been 
shown  that  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  itself  must  try  treasons  committed 
abroad.  Hence  a  trial  at  bar  was  the  proper  mode  of  trial  in  the  Casement 
caise.  The  trial  of  Lynch  was;  at  bar  in  1903,  and  there  had  been  another 
famous  trial  at  bar,  that  of  Dr.  Jameson,  also  arising  out  of  South,  African 
affairs,  this  latter  trial  being  for  the  incursion  into  the  Transvaal  in  breach 
of  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act.  This  latter  trial  shows  that  a  trial  at  bar 
may  take  place'  whenever  a  case  is  of  sufficient  importance  if  the  Court 
chooses  to  allow  it,  but  it  is  quite  at  its  discretion,  in  other  cases  than 
treason,  whether  it  does  so  or  not.  The  trial  of  Arthur  Orton  for  perjury 
in  1873,  and  the  action  against  Mr.  Bradlaugh  for  penalties  under  the  Par- 
liamentary Oaths  Act  in  1885  were  instances.  The  only  limitation  of  this 
discretion  is  in  cases  where  the  Crown  is  interested,  and  the  Attorney- 
General  may  then  demand  a  trial  at  bar  as  a  matter  of  right.  The 
usual  number  of  judges  at  such  a  trial  is  three. 

The  Attorney-General  has  also  another  privilege  when  he  appears  at 
a  trial  as  representing  the  Crown.  The  rule  in  an  ordinary  criminal  trial 
as  to  the  addresses  of  counsel  to  the  jury  is  that  the  prosecuting  counsel 
addresses  the  jury  last  if  counsel  for  the  prisoner  calls  witnesses  or  puts 
in  evidence  on  the  prisoner's  behalf ;  if  he  does  not,  the  last  word,  which 
is  considered  an  advantage,  lies  with  him.  This  rule,  however,  the 
Attorney-General  has  the  right  of  disregarding.  In  any  event,  even 
when  no  witnesses  are  called  by  the  prisoner,  he  claims  the  right  to 
say  the  last  word  to  the  jury.  The  right  has  frequently  been  criticised  as 
a  relic  of  ideas  about  State  prosecutions  which  no  longer  prevail.  The 
Crown  is  really  not  often  bloodthirsty  for  convictions,  but  the  right  is 
asserted,  perhaps,  on  the  principle  that  one  never  knows  what  may  yet 
turn  out  to  be  useful.  Accordingly  in  the  Casement  trial,  though  Serjeant 
Sullivan  did  not  call  witnesses,  nor  put  the  prisoner  in  the  box,  the 
Attorney-General  had  "  the  last  word." 

The  most  important  feature,  however,  of  the  Casement  trial,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  procedure,  was  that  it  was  the  first  trial  for  the  treason  of 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  abroad  which  could  be  reviewed  by  the 

xxi 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Court  of  Criminal  Appeal  in  case  the  prisoner  was  convicted.  The  Court 
of  Criminal  Appeal  was  not  brought  into  existence  until  1907,  three  years 
after  the  Lynch  trial.  The  Court  that  tried  Dr.  Lynch  at  bar  was  the 
Court  which  had  given  a  final  decision.  Serjeant  Sullivan  contended  that 
this  decision  was  wrong,  and  yet,  in  fact,  that  this  case  of  Lynch  was 
the  only  case  actually  decided  by  the  Courts  which  was  an  authority  against 
his  contention  that  Casement  could  not  be  convicted  for  the  treason  of 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  abroad.  The  first  step  in  his  defence 
had  been  to  move,  before  any  evidence  was  given  by  the  Crown,  that  the 
indictment  should  be  quashed  on  the  ground  that  the  foots  charged  in  the 
indictment  disclosed  no  offence  in  law;  that  is  to  say,  that  even  though 
the  facts  were  proved,  or  admitted  by  him  to  be  true,  and  that  they 
were  such  as  would  constitute  the  offence  of  adhering  to  the  King's 
enemies  if  Casement  had  been  present  within  the  realm,  yet  that  their 
commission  having  been  abroad,  the  statute  of  Edward  III.,  under  which 
Casement  was  charged,  did  not  declare  that  this  was  treason,  and  should 
be  punished  as  such ;  therefore  without  any  further  proceedings  Casement 
was  entitled  to  acquittal.  The  Court  intimated  that  this  objection  to 
the  indictment  ought  to  be  made  at  the  close  of  the  evidence  for  the 
Crown.  Accordingly  Serjeant  Sullivan  at  that  point  again  raised  his 
objection,  and  a  large  part  of  the  second  day  and  a  portion  of  the  third 
were  occupied  with  a  discussion  of  the  whole  question,  and  an  attack  on  the 
authorities  relied  upon  by  the  Crown.  It  was  on  the  third  day  that 
Professor  Morgan  was  heard  as  amicus  curice,  as  above  mentioned.  At 
the  close  of  these  arguments  the  Court  delivered  a  judgment  deciding 
against  the  objection  to  the  indictment  taken  by  the  defence.  There  still 
remained  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal,  to  which  these  arguments  might 
be  addressed  if  the  verdict  of  the  jury  should  be  against  the  prisoner. 
After  the  conviction  there  followed  the  appeal  to  that  Court,  and  below 
there  will  be  found  an  attempt  to  facilitate  the  understanding  of  those 
somewhat  difficult  arguments  by  a  survey  which  is  perhaps  as  short  as  the 
nature  of  the  subject  permits. 

Very  little  more  need  be  said  about  the  trial  itself.  The  evidence- 
is  laid  before  the  reader  in  the  following  pages,  and  it  seems  unnecessary 
to  attempt  any  summary  of  it.  The  story  at  length  is  extremely  inter- 
esting, and  in  summary  it  would  be  but  a  dry  skeletal  outline ;  but  there 
are  several  points  relating  to  the  trial  of  which  something  should  be  said. 
The  first  word  spoken  in  the  trial  was  the  word  "  Oyez."  Oyez  was  the 
Norman  French  word  meaning  "  hear  ye,"  and  is  still  used  in  those 
formal  proclamations  made  when  the  Courts,  such  as  the  Courts  of 
Assize,  open  their  sittings  under  the  King's  Commission.  It  is  one  of  the 
few  Norman  French  words  that  have  survived,  like  the  formula  "  le  roi  le 
xxii 


Introduction. 

"  veult,"  used  in  giving  the  King's  consent  to  legislation.  It  is  said  that 
the  original  pronunciation  has  been  retained  by  the  tradition  of  the 
Courts,  a,nd  that  Oh !  Yes!,  absurd  though  it  seems,  is  quite  correct. 

The  functions  of  the  modern  Coroner  are  so  specific  and  so  familiar 
that  the  reader  may  be  somewhat  surprised  to  find  a  Coroner,  even  though 
he  may  be  the  King's  Coroner,  taking  so  prominent  a  part  in  this  trial 
of  treason.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  officer  of  the  Court  who  read 
the  indictment,  and  took  the  prisoner's  plea,  and  who  was  the  only 
person  in  the  Court  who  addressed  Casement  throughout  the  trial,  is 
termed  the  King's  Coroner  and  Master  of  the  Crown  Office,  which  implies 
that  two  offices  are  now  embodied  in  the  same  holder.  The  King's 
Coroner,  as  all  Coroners1  were  in  ancient  days,  was  an  officer  exercising  many 
wide  and  important  functions  in  the  service  of  the  Crown,  besides  those  of 
holding  inquests ;  though  these  also  often  directly  concerned  the  King, 
either  as  regarding  his  revenue  or  the  State  administration  of  police.  One 
imagines  more  easily  the  character  of  the  King's  Coroner  in  early  days 
by  remembering  that  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  who  presided  at  Casement's 
trial  is,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  as  head  of  the  King's  Bench,  the  Chief 
Coroner  of  the  kingdom.  The  office  of  King's  Coroner  goes  back  to  the 
ancient  office  of  Clerk  of  the  Crown.  The  King's  Coroner  branched  off 
from  that  as  a  separate  office,  but  when  and  how  is  not  known.  The 
connection  between  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  and  the  King's  Coroner  is 
indicated  by  the  fact  that  the  King's  Coroner  is  appointed  by  the  Lord 
Chief  Justice.  As  to  the  Master  of  the  Crown  Office,  his  functions  depend 
on  the  fact  that  he  is  the  head  of  the  administrative  business  of  the 
Crown  side  of  the  Court  of  King's  Bench.  The  Crown  Office  is  coeval 
with  the  Court  itself,  as  it  was  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown,  who 
has  already  been  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  King's  Coroner. 

The  Crown  Office  records  commence  in  the  3  Edward  III.,  and  therefore 
twenty-two  years  earlier  in  the  reign  of  the  same  King  who>  gave  his  name 
to  the  statute  under  which  Casement  was  tried.  The  keeper  of  these 
records  is  now  the  King's  Coroner  and  Master  of  the  Crown  Office,  the 
two  offices  having  been  merged  into  one  in  1892.  In  course  of  time  the 
separate  functions  of  the  two  offices  had  become  indistinguishable,  or 
rather  perhaps  the  Master  of  the  Crown  Office  had  absorbed  most  of 
them.  It  cannot  now  be  said  that  the  King's  Coroner  has  any  functions 
distinct  from  those  of  the  Master  of  the  Crown  Office.  Whatever  they  are, 
the  one  salary  of  the  Master  of  the  Crown  Office  is  the  remuneration  for 
both.  Perhaps  it  may  be  desirable  to  add  that  the  Coroner  of  the 
King's  Household,  an  office  still  in  separate  existence,  has  no  connection 
with  the  King's  Coroner  of  whom  we  have  been  speaking. 

The  trial  began  on  Monday,  26th  June,  and  was  concluded  on  Thurs- 

xxiii 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


day,  the  29th  June.  On  the  latter  day  the  jury  retired  to  consider  their 
verdict,  and  returned  into  Court  after  an  absence  of  fifty-five  minutes  with 
a  verdict  of  guilty.  The  prisoner  then  was  asked  if  he  had  anything  to 
say  why  the  Court  should  not  pass  sentence  and  judgment  of  death  upon 
him;  and  in  response  he  made  the  statement  which  has  been  previously 
referred  to.  Some  controversy  arose  respecting  it  after  the  trial.  Sir 
Harry  Poland,  K.C.,  whose  opinion  on  criminal  law  is  highly  regarded  by 
lawyers,  stated  that  when  a  man  who  is  convicted  by  the  jury  is  called 
upon  to  say  why  judgment  should  not  be  passed  upon  him  according  to 
law,  he  is  only  entitled  to  move  on  some  point  of  law  in  arrest  of  judg- 
ment. Obviously  Casement  did  more  than  this;  and  one  objection  in 
regard  to  his  speech  was  that  the  counsel  for  the  Crown  had  no  oppor- 
tunity of  replying  to  it.  The  case  of  Wainwright,  whose  trial  took  place 
in  1875,  was  cited  by  Sir  Homewood  Crawford,  the  solicitor  of  the  City 
of  London.  When  Wainwright  was  asked  if  he  had  anything  to  say,  he 
started  to  deliver  what  would  have  been  a  long  speech.  He  had  the 
reputation  of  being  an  eloquent  speaker,  and  was  evidently  intending  to 
exercise  his  gift,  but  the  Lord  Chief  Justice,  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn, 
quickly  stopped  him,  saying,  "  I  cannot  allow  you  to  make  a  speech.  The 

only  question  put  to  you  is  whether  you  have  anything  to  say  why 
"  sentence  should  not  be  passed  upon  you."  The  usual  practice  in 
criminal  trials,  especially  for  capital  offences!,  is  to  allow  the  prisoner  to 
make  a  verbal  statement  before  sentence.  If  it  is  put  into  writing  it  may 
be  read  openly  by  the  prisoner  if  he  prefers,  or  by  the  judge  privately. 
The  statement  is  not  interrupted,  unless  it  attacks  persons  not  parties  to 
the  proceedings,  or  otherwise  contains  scandalous  matter.  But  it  remains 
quite  true  that  this  is  not  a  right,  but  a  grace  or  judicial  courtesy;  and 
the  prisoner  has  no  legal  claim  to  do  more  than  take  objection  to  the  verdict 
and  judgment.  Evidently  what  was  allowed  in  the  Casement  case  was 
a  matter  of  discretion.  Was  it  more  expedient  in  the  circumstances  that 
Casement  should  be  allowed  to  have  his  say,  or  peremptorily  to  close  his 
mouth?  To  stop  such  an  appeal  to  political  sentiment  as  this  was  not 
necessary  for  any  specific  public  purpose;  and  to  have  appeared  afraid  of 
what  Casement  might  say  would  have  exaggerated  his  importance,  and  so 
have  been  neither  discreet  nor  dignified.  The  Lord  Chief  Justice  appears 
to  have  taken  quite  the  right  course  in  allowing  Casement  the  liberty  he 
actually  took. 

There  remained  to  the  convict  the  right  to  appeal  from  the  sentence 
and  judgment  to  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal,  and  he  availed  himself 
of  it.  His  appeal  was  inconsistent  with  the  attitude  he  took  in  his 
statement  with  regard  to  the  jurisdiction  of  any  English  Court  to  deter- 
mine his  guilt  or  innocence,  but  to  that  inconsistency  was  due  the  more 

xxiv 


Introduction. 

elaborated  arguments  which  were  laid  before  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal, 
though  essentially  they  were  the  same  previously  raised,  and  decided 
against  him,  at  the  trial  at  bar.  In  the  notice  of  appeal  objections  were 
formulated  relating  not  only  to  the  judgment  of  the  Court  upon  the  charge 
of  the  treason  of  adherence  committed  out  of  the  realm,  but  also  to  the 
direction  of  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  to  the  jury  as  to  the  nature  of  the  offence 
of  adherence,  and  to  the  admission  of  certain  evidence,  especially  the 
printed  appeal,  which  was  circulated  amongst  the  prisoners  in  the  camp 
at  Limburg.  But  in  the  arguments  before  the  Court  no  other  point  was, 
in  fact,  raised  than  that  which  had  been  before  the  Court  of  trial,  namely, 
the  question  of  adherence  in  Germany  out  of  the  realm.  The  Court  of 
Criminal  Appeal,  presided  over  by  Mr.  Justice  Darling,  and  consisting  of 
five  judges,  took  exactly  the  same  view,  we  may  say,  of  Serjeant  Sullivan's 
new  presentation  of  his  case  as  the  Court  of  trial  had  taken  when  he 
moved  to  quash  the  indictment.  They  dismissed  the  appeal  without 
having  called  on  counsel  for  the  Crown  in  a  judgment  of  the  Court  delivered 
by  Mr.  Justice  Darling  on  the  18th  of  July,  1916,  after  a  discussion 
covering  two  days.  The  account  of  the  proceedings  in  the  Court  of 
Criminal  Appeal  followsi,  in  the  body  of  this  book,  the  account  of  the 
trial.  We  may  perhaps  remark  that  it  was  an  advantage  to  the  Court 
of  Appeal,  in  considering  the  arguments,  to  be  relieved  from  the  enormous 
strain  of  the  trial  which  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  and  his  fellow- judges,  Mr. 
Justice  Avory  and  Mr.  Justice  Horridge,  had  to  bear ;  and  the  reader  may 
be  indebted  to  that  relief  from  strain  for  the  apt  quotation  from  Milton 
which  adorned  the  judgment  of  Mr.  Justice  Darling.  Serjeant  Sullivan 
was  not  likely  to  be  unappreciative  of  the  humour  of  it,  as  a  repartee 
to  his  own  fierce  attacks  on  the  reputation  of  Lord  Coke. 

THE  ARGUMENTS  AND  JUDGMENT  IN  THE  COURT  OF  CRIMINAL  APPEAL. 

The  objection  to  the  indictment  framed  under  the  statute  of  Edward 
III.  of  1351,  which  was  taken  at  the  trial  and  argued  there  by  Serjeant 
Sullivan,  and  also  on  the  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal,  was  that 
there  was  no  treasonable  offence  under  this  statute  of  Edward  III.  of  adhering 
outside  the  realm  unless  the  prisoner  was  at  the  time  within  the  realm.  From 
the  year  of  the  statute,  1351,  to  the  year  1903,  when  Rex  v.  Lynch  was 
tried,  he  contended  that  there  had  been  no  argument  and  no  decision  upon 
the  statute  as  to  adhering  outside  the  realm,  and  that  when  the  latter 
case  was  examined  it  would  be  found  to  be  based  upon  misapprehensions  of 
a  case  of  Eex  v.  Vaughan,  which  was  not  really  a  decision  upon  the 
statute. 

In  this  alleged  absence  of  relevant  decisions  he  submitted  that  since 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


the  prisoner  was  charged  with  adhering  out  of  the  realm,  he  being 
out  of  the  realm,  any  exposition  of  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  or  comments 
upon  it  by  text-writers;,  however  great  their  reputation,  which  would  fix 
on  him  the  offence,  were  merely  expressions  of  personal  opinion  which  had 
no  authority  or  binding  foroe  upon  any  judge  or  Court.  Certain  great 
expositors  of  the  common  law,  as  Lord  Coke,  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  and  Mr. 
Serjeant  Hawkins,  whose  opinions  in  many  matters  of  the  common  law, 
civil  or  criminal,  are  often  taken  as  almost  conclusive,  had  construed  and 
expounded  the  statute  in  a  contrary  sense  from  that  for  which  he  was 
contending.  The  Court,  however,  ought  not  to  take  even  their  opinions 
as  conclusive.  Moreover,  there  was  another  objection  to  be  made.  These 
opinions  had  not  even  the  value  which  may  be  attributed  to  the  opinions 
of  great  lawyers  and  general  professional  opinion  as  to  the  meaning  and 
construction  of  a  statute  when  they  are  contemporaneous  with  the  statute 
itself.  Lord  Coke,  the  earliest  of  these  writers,  did  not  comment  on 
the  Act  of  Edward  III.  until  the  statute  of  26  Henry  VIII.  had  come 
into  existence  and  altered  the  whole  law  of  treason,  both  as  regards  sub- 
stantive offences  and  the  procedure  and  mode  of  trial  of  offences  of  treason. 
The  26  Henry  VIII.  was  in  the  year  1535,  one  hundred  and  eighty- four 
years  after  the  statute  of  Edward  III. 

These  being  the  circumstances,  and  the  situation  in  which  Casement 
was  put  upon  his  trial,  Serjeant  Sullivan  urged  upon  the  two  Courts  before 
which  he  appeared  that  they  were  untrammelled  by  previous  authority 
either  of  decisions  or  opinions  that  had  been  held  and  expressed  by 
eminent  expounders  and  commentators  on  the  law. 

Addressing  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal  in  two  passages,  one  of 
which  is  at  the  beginning  and  the  other  at  the  end,  he  said  as  to  the 
question  being  de  novo,  "  I  intend  on  the  construction  of  the  statute  to 
"  submit  that  if  we  had  to  construe  this  statute  as  though  it  had  passed 
"  yesterday,  the  first  reading  of  it  would  convey  a  perfectly  clear  view  of 
<c  the  provisions  of  the  statute  to  the  mind  of  everybody,  and  that  that 
"  clear  view  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  matter  charged  in  the  indictment 
"  being  an  offence  under  the  statute."  The  second  passage  is  as  follows :  — 
"  My  lords,  for  these  reasons  I  submit  that  this  Court  is  not  trammelled 
"  by  the  speculative  opinions  of  any  text-writers  where  the  statute  has  not 
"  been  construed  by  any  other  Court  except  the  Court  at  bar  in  The  King 
"  v.  Lynch,  and  accordingly  that  the  Court  should  approach  this  statute 
"as  if  the  statute  had  passed  yesterday,  and,  if  reading  it  as  passing 
"  yesterday,  a  clear  opinion  on  the  terms  of  the  statute  is  conveyed  to  the 
"  mind  of  the  Court,  that  should  be  the  reading  of  the  statute,  no  matter 
"  for  how  many  years  text-writers  have  expressed  a  different  opinion." 

It  is  obvious  why  Serjeant  Sullivan  was  attacking  the  authority  of 
xxvi 


Introduction. 

Lord  Coke,  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  and  Mr.  Serjeant  Hawkins,  and  urging  the- 
Court  to  approach  the  construction  of  the  statute  as  if  it  were  res  integra. 
These  writers  were  all  against  him ;  and  it  is  as  well  to  know  at  once  that 
the  Court  declined  his  invitation  to  dismiss  these  writers!  from  considera- 
tion, and  construe  the  statute  independently  as  if  they  were  reading  it  for 
the  first  time,  and  it  had  never  been  commented  on.  Mr.  Justice  Darling, 
giving  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal,  said,  "  We  are- 
"relying,  confessedly  relying,  upon  the  authority  of  Sir  Matthew  Hale 
"  and  of  Serjeant  Hawkins  in  the  judgment  we  are  giving,  and  also  upon 
"the  opinion  expressed  by  Lord  Coke,  to  which  I  will  come  presently. " 
He  then  quotes  a  passage  from  a  judgment  of  Chief  Justice  Dallas  in  a  case 
of  Butt  v.  Conant  in  1820,  who  said,  "  Now,  if  the  authority  of  Lord 
"  Hale  and  that  of  Mr.  Serjeant  Hawkins  are  to  be  treated  lightly,  we 
"may  be  without  any  authority  whatever."  Mr.  Justice  Darling's 
observation  upon  this  is,  "  Here  we  are  asked  to  treat  them  lightly;  we 
"  are  asked  to  reject  them  altogether/' 

Mr.  Justice  Darling  also  quotes  another  passage  which  directly  bears 
on  one  of  the  contentions  of  Serjeant  Sullivan,  that  Lord  Coke  had  not 
grounded  his  opinions  upon  the  authority  of  actually  decided  cases.  This 
passage,  quoted  by  Mr.  Justice  Darling,  is  the  following,  and  is  to  be 
found  in  the  case  of  Garland  v.  Jekyll  in  1824,  "The  fact  is  Lord  Coke 
"  had  no  authority  for  what  he  states,  but  I  am  afraid  we  should  get  rid  of 
"  a  good  deal  of  what  is  considered  law  in  Westminster  Hall  if  what  Lord 
"  Coke  says,  without  authority,  is  not  law.  He  was  one  of  the  most 
"  eminent  lawyers  that  ever  presided  as  a  judge  in  any  Court  of  Justice, 
"  and  what  is  said  by  such  a  person  is  good  evidence  of  what  the  law  is, 
"particularly  when  it  is  in  conformity  with  justice  and  common  sense." 
Mr.  Justice  Darling's  observation  on  this  passage  is,  "  Those  are  the  worda 
"  of  Chief  Justice  Best." 

Though  Serjeant  Sullivan  asked  the  judges  to  construe  the  statute  of 
Edward  a®  if  it  had  been  passed  yesterday,  this  was  really  not  quite  what 
he  meant.  He  asked  that  the  statute  should  be  construed  freed  from 
the  accretions  of  text-writers  of  subsequent  ages,  and  read  in  the  light  of 
the  customs  or  laws  of  legal  procedure  which  prevailed  when  the  statute 
was  passed.  In  this  way  would  best  be  inferred  what  was  the  most 
probable  meaning  of  the  statute  when  it  was  passed.  His  position  was 
that  if  this  were  done  the  statute  could  then  be  construed  a®  hardly  more 
than  raising  a  question  of  grammatical  construction,  a  question  of  the 
syntax  of  the  sentence  or  sentences.  In  that  case,  then,  he  invited  the 
judges  to  say  that  the  words  of  the  statute  creating  the  treason  of  adhering 
to  the  King's  enemies  must  be  read  in  such  a  way  that  Casement  could 
not  have  been  properly  convicted.  The  sentences  plainly  meant,  he 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


contended,  that  Casement  could  not  have  committed  the  treason  of  adhering 
to  the  King's  enemies  without  the  realm,  seeing  that  he  was  not  in  the 
realm  when  he  attempted  to  persuade  the  Irish  soldiers  from  their 
allegiance.  The  man  must  be  in  the  realm,  though  the  acts  alleged  against 
him  may  have  been  committed  outside  the  realm. 

As  a  matter  of  common  sense,  and  as  an  effective  law  of  treason  for 
the  present  day,  this  may  appear  to  the  reader  as  not  at  all  satisfactory. 
But  if  the  question  is  merely  what  is  the  grammatical  meaning   of  the 
sentences  in  the  Act  he  will,  we  think,  consider  them  very  puzzling,  and 
agree  that  on  the  face  of  it  Serjeant  Sullivan's  rendering  is  possible,   or 
even  probable.       It  presents  a  nice  exercise  in  grammatical  construction, 
and  one  arrives  at  a  very  unflattering  opinion  of  the  literary  skill  of  the 
draftsmen  of  the  Edwardian  era.       The  ingenious  renderings  of  the  judges 
and  Serjeant  Sullivan  may  be  read  in  the  arguments,  where  is  also  to  be 
found  some  very  interesting  antiquarian  lore  about  the  MSS.  of  the  old 
statutes.       The  language,  then,  of  the  statute  of  treasons  must  be  admitted 
to  be  ambiguously  worded,  and  Serjeant  Sullivan  could  not  merely  give  his 
reading,  and  leave  it  there,  without  doing  something  more  to  make  his 
reading  appear  to  be  the  more  probable  of  two  or  more  possible  ones.     It 
was  obvious  that  the  judges  could  not  simply  be  asked  to  read  and  construe 
the  statute  as  if  they  saw  it  for  the  first  time.        The  principle  upon 
which    Serjeant    Sullivan   proceeded    in    his    argument    is    one    expressed 
in  a  passage  from  Maxwell  on  the  Interpretation  of  Statutes,  chapter  II. — 
"  The  language  of  a  statute  must  be  understood  in  the  sense  in  which  it 
"was  understood  when  it  was  passed,  and  those  who  lived  at  or  near  the 
"  time  when   it  was   passed   may   reasonably   be  supposed   to   be   better 
' '  acquainted  than  their  descendants  with  the  circumstances  to  which  it  had 
"  relation,  as  well  as  with  the  sense  then  attached  to  legislative  expressions." 
What  Serjeant   Sullivan   therefore   laboured   to    show    was   that   the 
statute,   at  the  time  it  was  passed,   must  have  had  a  different  meaning 
from  that  put  upon  it  by  Lord  Coke,  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  and  Mr.  Serjeant- 
Hawkins,  and  that  these  "descendants"  of  the  legislators  of  1351  mis- 
understood what  had  then  been   done,    because,    in   fact,   they  were  not 
particularly  well  acquainted  with  the  circumstances  to  which  the  statute 
had  relation ;  or  that  they  ignored  them.       Serjeant  Sullivan's  argument, 
put  shortly,  runs  thus— "  You  say  that  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  makes 
"  a  treasonable  offence  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  abroad  although 
"the  offender  was  not  in  the  realm.       My  answer  is  that  at  that  time 
"  a  crime  committed  abroad  could  not  be  tried  in  England  as,  on  account 
"  of  the  law  of  judicial  procedure  of  that  period,  there  was  no  Court  which 
"had  jurisdiction  to  try  an  offence  committed  abroad."       His  inference 
from  this  was  drawn  as  follows: — "  What  I  submit  is  this,  that  nothing  is 


Introduction. 

"  treason  unless  it  can  be  so  adjudicated  treason.  When  you  are  dealing* 
"  "with  the  Courts  of  law  it  is  not  a  matter  of  morals  but  of  la,w.  Unless 
"  there  is  some  Court  that  can  say  whether  a  treasonable  act  has  been  com- 
"  mitted  or  not,  on  the  inquiry  into  the  matter,  it  cannot  be  treason  to 
"  do  an  act  which  you  can  do  without  being  punishable  for  it,  or  triable  for 
"it  in  a  Court  of  law.  There  cannot  be  what  in  law  amounts  to  a  crime 
"  of  which  no  Court  can  inform  itself.  You  must  not  be  presumed  to  have 
"committed  a  crime  until  you  have  been  lawfully  condemned,  and  if 
"  there  exists  no  machinery,  not  only  for  condemnation  but  for  inquiry, 
"  I  submit  that  is  overwhelming  proof  that  the  act  cannot  be  a  caime,  when 
"  its  legal  quality  cannot  be  inquired  into." 

We  need  not  consider  the  question  whether  it  is  theoretically  true  to 
say  that  an  act  is  not  a  crime  if  no  Court  exists  which  can  try  it.  But 
evidently  Serjeant  Sullivan's  argument  depends  on  the  alleged  historical 
fact  that  no  Court  existed  in  those  early  days  of  the  common  law,  when 
the  statute  was  passed,  for  trying  an  offence  of  adhering  to  the  King's 
enemies  in  the  realm  of  some  other  Prince.  Was  there  any  such  Court? 
If  there  were  not,  it  would  be  the  height  of  absurdity  to  enact  that  adhering 
to  the  King's  enemies  abroad  should  be  treason.  If  it  were  intended 
then  that  such  adhering  should  be  treason,  there  being  no  such  Court,  one 
would  have  to  be  created.  The  statute,  however,  did  not  create  any 
Court  or  any  procedure  for  a  Court.  The  inference  therefore  drawn 
by  Serjeant  Sullivan  was  that  it  was  not  intended  to  make  adhering  abroad 
a  treason  unless  the  offender  were  in  the  realm,  in  which  case  some  Court 
could  probably  be  found  which  would  have  power  to  try  that  offence  by 
the  fact  of  the  offender  being  in  the  realm. 

But  now  suppose,  in  the  absence  of  any  regular  Court,  say,  the  King's 
ordinary  Courts,  which  could  try  the  offence  of  adhering  abroad  when  the 
offender  was  not  in  the  realm,  that  the  King  had  the  right,  by  the  fact 
of  his  sovereignty,  and  without  any  statute  conferring  such  a  power  on 
him,  of  appointing  a  Commission  ad  hoc?  Suppose  he  could  endow  that 
Commission  with  the  right  to  inquire  into  the  treason  according  to  the 
ordinary  methods  of  the  common  law,  and,  on  proof  of  guilt,  with  the  power 
to  impose  upon  the  culprit  the  usual  punishments  of  the  common  law  of 
treason?  Then  it  is  obvious  that  the  alleged  fact  of  there  being  no  Court 
to  try  the  treason  would  be  untrue,  and  Serjeant  Sullivan's  argument 
would  collapse. 

He  had  therefore  to  show  that  the  King  could  not,  and  did  not, 
issue  such  commissions  unless  there  were  statutory  authority,  and  he  con- 
tended that  this  statutory  authority  was  conferred  upon  the  King  for  the 
first  time  by  the  statute  of  26  Henry  VIII.  in  1535. 

The  general  rule  of  the  common  law  was  that  crimes  must  be  tried  in- 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


the  county  where  they  were  committed;  the  venue  must  be  laid  there, 
as  was  said.  If  a  man  were  shot  in  one  county,  for  example,  but  died 
in  another  from  the  wound,  as  he  might  do  where  the  occurrence  happened 
on  the  borders  of  counties,  this  raised  a  difficulty.  In  the  arguments  will 
be  found  much  interesting  information  as  to  the  dilemmas  that  might 
occur.  There  was  a  doubt  whether  the  murderer  could  be  tried  at  all 
until  the  statute  of  Edward  I.  (1272-1297).  Sir  James  Fitzjames  Stephen 
was  of  opinion  that  he  could  not;  but  this  statute  made  provisions  as  to 
the  venue,  and  laid  down  rules  by  which  in  one  county  or  the  other  the 
trial  might  be  held. 

Serjeant  Sullivan  contended  that  before  the  statute  the  murderer 
could  not  have  been  tried,  and  that  a  statute  was  necessary  to  remove  the 
difficulty.  This  being  so  as  regards  counties,  he  proceeded  to  consider 
what  happened  when  such  a  crime  as  murder  was  committed  out  of  the 
realm,  in  which  case  there  would  be  no  venue  under  the  common  law. 
There  seems  to  be  little  doubt  that  this  case  could  not  have  been  tried  at 
common  law.  But  there  were  other  Courts  than  the  common  law  Courts 
which  could  have  tried  this  offence,  and  others  of  a  similar  character  which 
the  common  law  Courts  could  not  try.  The  Courts  of  the  Marshal  and 
Constable  could  have  tried  the  offence  just  mentioned  of  murder  out  of 
the  realm.  The  Court  of  the  Admiral  had  jurisdiction  to  try  crimes  com- 
mitted on  the  high  seas1,  or  on  estuaries  and  rivers  not  in  the  bodies  of 
counties.  These  Courts  sat  in  virtue  of  Commissions  issued  to  the  Constable 
and  Marshal  and  the  Admiral.  But  if  "  a  man  be  stricken  upon  the 
"high  sea,  and  dies  of  the  same  stroke  upon  the  land,  they  cannot  be 
"  inquired  of  by  the  common  law " — so  asserts  an  old  writer.  To 
remedy  this  difficulty,  which  is  analogous  to  the  case  of  the  two  counties 
before  mentioned,  a  statute  of  13  Richard  II.  (1377-1399)  enabled  the 
Constable  and  Marshal  to  hear  and  determine  the  same. 

Now,  in  all  these  instances,  argued  Serjeant  Sullivan,  whether  the 
difficulty  arose  out  of  two  English  counties,  or  the  scene  of  action  being 
wholly  abroad,  or  partly  abroad,  or  partly  on  the  high  seas  and  partly  on 
the  land,  the  common  law  Courts  had  no  jurisdiction  to  try  them,  and  there- 
fore they  were  not  common  law  offences.  The  common  law  was  not  applic- 
able except  it  was  made  applicable  by  statute,  and  in  all  the  above  cases 
some  statute  had  brought  them  within  the  sphere  and  jurisdiction  of 
some  Court.  The  Courts  of  the  Constable  and  Marshal  and  of  the 
Admiral  indeed  punished,  treasons,  as  they  punished,  other  crimes,  when 
such  crimes  came  within  their  jurisdiction ;  but  they  did  not  try  them, 
nor  punish  them,  as  common  law  crimes.  Such  was  the  position  when  the 
statute  of  Edward  III.  was  passed,  laying  down  a  law,  or  laws,  of  several 
kinds  of  treason,  amongst  them  that  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies. 


Introduction. 

If  it  were  intended  that  the  offence  when  committed  abroad  out  of  the 
realm  should  be  tried  and  punished  here  it  must  be  punishable  either  in  the 
Constable  and  Marshal's  Court,  in  which  case  it  would  be  triable  like 
murder  out  of  the  realm,  and  not  according  to  the  common  law,  and  with 
the  common  law  punishments.  If  it  were  intended  that  itsi  character 
should  be  changed,  and  come  under  the  common  law,  then  there  was  no 
Court  to  try  it,  and  some  procedure  of  Court  must  be  provided  by  statute, 
as  had  always  been  done  when  the  strict  common  law  doctrine  of  venue  had 
to  be  extended.  But  the  statute  itself  was  silent  altogether  as  to  pro- 
cedure, and  implied  no  other  Court  than  the  common  law  Court.  The 
inference,  therefore,  was  that  it  left  the  common  law  venue  as  it  stood 
at  that  time,  and  did  not  intend  to  create  a  treason  of  adhering  to  the 
King  out  of  the  realm. 

This  argument  was  supported  and  strengthened  by  the  fact  that 
when  the  law  of  treason  was  altered,  and  new  treasons  were  created  by 
the  statute  26  Henry  VIII.  expressly,  and  amongst  other  treasons  it  was 
enacted  that  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  abroad  should  be  treason,  the 
statute  proceeded  to  lay  down  rules  of  procedure  and  to  appoint  a  Court 
which  should  try  these  treasons.  They  were  to  be  "  inquired  of  and  pre- 
"  sented  by  the  oaths  of  twelve  good  and  lawful  men,  upon  good  and  probable 
"  evidence  and  witness,  in  such  county  and  shire  of  this  realm,  and  before 
"  such  persons1  as  it  shall  please  the  King's  Highness  to  appoint  by  com- 
"  mission  under  his  great  seal,  in  like  manner  and  form  as  treasons  com- 
"  mitted  within  this  realm  have  been  used  to  be  inquired  of  and  presented, 
"  and  that  upon  every  indictment  and  presentment  found  and  made  of 
"  any  such  treasons,  and  certified  into  the  King's  Bench,  like  process  and 
"  other  circumstances  shall  be  there  had  and  made  against  the  offenders  as 
' '  if  the  same  treasons  so  presented  had  been  lawfully  found  to  be  done 
"  and  committed  within  the  limits  of  this  realm." 

This  tribunal  was  a  statutory  tribunal,  a  special  Commission  to  be 
appointed  by  the  King  by  statutory  power,  and  was  not  a  common  law 
tribunal.  By  the  35  Henry  VIII.,  according  to  Serjeant  Sullivan,  the 
common  law  came  in  for  the  first  time  in  the  case  of  treasons  committed 
abroad.  This  statute  enacted  that  all  treasonable  offences  already 
declared  such,  or  that  should  thereafter  be  declared  to  be  such,  to  be 
done  or  committed  out  of  the  realm,  "  shall  be  from  henceforth  inquired 
"of,  heard,  and  determined  before  the  King's  justices  of  his  bench  for 
"  pleas  to  be  holden  before  himself  by  good  and  lawful  men  of  the  same 
"  shire  where  the  said  bench  shall  sit  and  be  kept,  or  else  be  before  such 
"  Commissioners,  and  in  such  shire  of  the  realm  as  shall  be  assigned  by 
"  the  King's  Majesty's  Commission,  and  by  good  and  lawful  men  of  the 
"same  shire  in  like  manner"  as  if  they  had  been  done  "within  the 

xxxi 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


"  same  shire  whereof  they  shall  be  so  inquired  of,  heard,  and  determined 
"as  is  aforesaid." 

The  argument  of  Serjeant  Sullivan  drawn  from  these  two  statutes  of 
Henry  VIII.  was  that  the  acts  committed  outside  the  realm  must  previously 
have  not  been  punishable,  therefore  not  crimes,  and  if  they  had  not  been 
new  offbncea  there  would  have  been  no  necessity  for  the  firet  statute, 
"  with  its  clumsy  procedure  "  ;  and  that  the  second  statute  was  passed  to 
reform  this  procedure,  which  was  done  by  bringing  the  acts  within  the 
common  law  procedure. 

In  its  judgment  the  Court  did  not  decide  on  this  antiquarian  argument, 
as  it  may  be  termed,  because,  on  their  construction  of  the  statute  of 
Edward  III.,  they  held  that  the  statute  itself,  on  its  own  wording,  made 
adhering  outside  the  realm  an  offence  of  treason;  and  that  there  was  a 
great  deal  of  authority  for  this  proposition.  But  we  find  in  the  argument 
Mr.  Justice  Darling  saying  that  Serjeant  Sullivan  left  out,  as  it  seemed 
to  him,  the  power  of  the  Crown  to  issue  Commissions  for  the  trial  of 
treasons  committed  out  of  the  realm.  To  this  Serjeant  Sullivan  replied 
that  if  there  were  such  commissions  they  would  have  been  found,  and  that 
they  had  not  been  found.  In  every  case,  so  far  as  he  knew,  he  said,  they 
had  been  issued  under  statutory  power.  When  he  was  asked  by  Mr. 
Justice  Darling  where  he  found  a  commission  which  was  issued  by  statutory 
authority — which  was  the  first  of  them? — he  answered,  "  I  cannot  tell 
"you."  Agiain,  Mr.  Justice  Darling  said,  "When  you  find  what 
"  Hale,  Coke,  and  Hawkins  thought  about  this  matter  it  really  will  not 
"do.  The  War  of  the  Roses  took  place  in  England,  and  this  statute  of 
"  Henry  VIII.  was  passed  when  England  was  only  just  settling  down  from 
"  a  long  period  of  devastating  war." 

The  statute-  of  26  Henry  VIII.  making  new  treasons  was  repealed  by 
the  Act  of  Mary  I.  (1553-1558),  which  restored  the  law  of  treason  as  it 
stood  in  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  of  1351.  Other  treasonable  offences 
were  created  by  subsequent  statutes  down  to  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  but 
these  were  all  repealed  between  1860  and  1870.  Serjeant  Sullivan  discussed 
these  statutes*  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  that,  even  so  late  as  the 
eighteenth  century,  they  dealt  carefully  with  the  question  of  venue  when 
a  crime  outside  the  realm  was  created;  and  therefore,  a  fortiori,  the 
question  of  venue  must  have  been  in  the  minds  of  the  legislators  in  the 
time  of  Edward  III. 

Serjeant  Sullivan  had  now  reached  the  stage  in  his  argument  when 
he  might  consider  the  interpretation  of  the  statute  of  Edward  III.,  there 
being  against  him  the  authority  of  the  text- writers,  Coke,  Hale,  and 
Hawkins,  and  the  cases-  which  they  had  quoted  and  relied  on  for  their 
opinions,  that  the  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies  outside  the  realm  was 


Introduction. 

treason  under  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  The  view  he  presented  was 
that  none  of  these  writers  produced  any  valid  authority,  and  that  their 
opinions  per  se  were  not  authoritative.  He  maintained  that  there  was 
no  decided  case  on  the  statute  until  that  of  Rex  v.  Lynch  in  1903,  where 
the  indictment  was  for  the  offence  of  adhering  abroad,  and  he  submitted 
that  this  case  had  been  wrongly  decided. 

We  may  observe  that  in  the  judgment  the  Court  stated  that  they 
purposely  did  not  rely  upon  this  case,  simply  for  the  reason  that  they 
were  of  opinion  that  there  was  ample  authority  for  the  conclusion  to 
which  the  Court  indubitably  came  in  that  case,  to  be  found  in  the  de- 
cisions, and  in  the  opinions  of  great  lawyers,  to  which  reference  was  made 
in  the  judgment  in  the  present  case. 

Serjeant  Sullivan  did  not,  and  could  not,  deny  that  the  opinions  of 
these  writers!  were  utterly  opposed  to  his  contention.  Would  he  have 
been  in  a  better  position  if  he  could  have  shown  that  the  cases  they 
actually  cited  as  their  authorities  were  irrelevant  or  could  be  explained,  as 
he  attempted  to  do,  on  the  ground  that  these  cases  were  of  offences  triable 
by  the  special  Courts  of  the  Constable  and  Marshal  or  Admiral,  and  not 
by  the  common  law  Courts?  It  is  hardly  likely  that  he  would,  considering 
the  attitude  in  which  the  Court  approached  these  authorities.  Mr.  Justice 
Darling,  both  in  the  arguments  and  in  the  judgment  of  the  Court,  as  we 
have  seen,  read  from  judgments  of  Chief  Justice  Dallas  and  Chief  Justice 
Best  certain  passages  in  which  they  had  said  that  the  Courts  would  have 
to  get  rid  of  a  good  deal  of  what  was  considered  law  if  what.  Lord  Coke  said 
without  authority  was  not  law. 

Whether  Serjeant  Sullivan  did,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  prove  that  Lord 
Coke's  authorities  would  not  stand  examination  we  shall  not  attempt  to 
decide,  as  the  Court  neither  affirmed  nor  denied ;  but  we  may  refer  to  an 
observation  of  Mr.  Justice  Scrutton  (which  appears  on  page  264)  at  the 
close  of  a  discussion  on  some  of  the  cases  Lord  Coke  had  cited  as  authorities. 
This  was  after,  it  may  be  noted,  Serjeant  Sullivan  had  admitted  that  there 
were  places  in  the  King's  Dominions,  but  out  of  the  realm,  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  region  of  the  common  law  of  England,  where  offences  having 
been  committed  there  could  be  a  trial  in  England.  Upon  this  Mr.  Justice 
Scrutton  remarked,  "  Perhaps  there  is  a  little  more  to  be  said  for  Lord 
"  Coke  than  you  thought.  You  will  not  be  quite  so  severe  on  him  when 
"  you  next  come  to  address  us  about  him,  will  you? " 

But  although  the  Court  frankly  adopted  the  opinions  of  Lord  Coke, 
Sir  Matthew  Hale,  and  Mr.  Serjeant  Hawkins  as  the  main  ground  of  their 
decision,  they  also,  by  an  independent  reading  of  the  statute,  rejected 
the  interpretation  which  Serjeant  Sullivan  put  upon  it.  He  had  asked 
them  to  interpret  it  as  if  they  were  reading  it  for  the  first  time.  They 


xxxm 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


accepted  his  invitation,  and  arrived  at  a  conclusion  which  had  the  merit 
of  supporting  the  authority  of  the  impeached  text- writers. 

Serjeant  Sullivan's  criticism,  or  accusation,  of  Lord  Coke  was  that 
he  had  left  out  the  essential  and  governing  words  of  the  whole  section 
relating  to  adhering.  The  offence  is  described  in  the  statute  a,s  a  man 
being  "  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his  realm,  giving  to  them  aid 
"  and  comfort  in  the  realm,  or  elsewhere,  and  thereof  be  probably  attainted 
"  of  open  deed."  Lord  Coke  had  set  out  the  statute  correctly,  and  had 
translated  it  correctly,  but  when  he  came  to  the  detailed  commentary  he 
leaves  out  the  words  "  in  his  realm,"  as  they  first  occur,  and  make®  his 
comment  as  if  the  whole  sentence  ran  "  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies, 
"  giving  to  them  aid  and  comfort  in  the  realm  or  elsewhere."  This,  said 
Serjeant  Sullivan,  altered  the  whole  meaning  of  the  statute. 

Coke's  commentary  was  only  justifiable,,  Serjeant  Sullivan  contended, 
on  the  supposition  that  these  words  "in  his  realm"  might  be  omitted; 
and  it  was  the  commentary  so  made,  he  urged,  which  became  the  foundation 
of  what  was  the  plain  error  of  the  writer.  This  commentary  runs  thus — 
"  This  is  here  explained,  viz.,  in  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's 
"enemies  within  the  realm  or  without;  delivery  or  surrender  of  the 
"  King's  castles  or  forts  by  the  King's  captaine  thereof  to  the  King's 
"  enemie  within  or  without  for  reward,  &c.,  is  an  adhering  to  the  King's 
"  enemie,  and  consequently  treason  declared  by  this  Act." 

Serjeant  Sullivan  submitted,  as  has  already  been  pointed  out,  that 
these  cases  of  delivering  of  castles  were  not  at  common  law  at  all,  but  were 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Constable  and  Marshal;  therefore  it  was 
not  a  crime  to  which  the  statute  refers,  because  it  could  not  be  tried  by 
the  King's  Courts  at  common  law. 

The  reading  of  the  statute  which  Serjeant  Sullivan  put  before  the 
Court,  and  the  meaning  he  put  on  the  statute  when  the  limitation  of  the 
words  "  in  hie  realm  "  wasi  given  its  proper  effect,  as  well  as  the  opinion 
of  the  Court  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  statute,  may  be  best  given  by  a 
quotation  from  the  judgment. 

Mr.  Justice  Darling  said,  "  Taking  the  words  of  the  statute  them- 
"  selves,  it  appears  to  us  that  the  construction  for  which  Serjeant  Sullivan 
"  contends  is  not  the  true  one.  He  would  have  it  that  '  be  adherent  to 
"  '  the  King's  enemies  in  his  realm,  giving  to  them  aid  and  comfort  in 
"  'the  realm  or  elsewhere,'  means  that  the  adherence,  because  it  is  the 
"adherence  which  is  the  offence,  really  must  be  by  a  person  who,  being 
' ( in  this  country,  gives  the  aid  and  comfort,  it  may  be  in  this  country,  it 
"may  be  outside  of  it.  We  agree  that  if  a  person,  being  within  this 
"country,  gives  aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's  enemies  in  this  country, 
"  he  is  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies;  we  agree  (and  Serjeant  Sullivan 
xxxiv 


Introduction. 

"  admits  this)  that  if  he  is  in  this  country,  and  he  gives  aid  and  comfort 
"  to  the  King's  enemies  outside  this  country,  he  is  adherent  to  the  King's 
"  enemies.  But  we  think  there  is  another  offence,  and  that  these  words 
t(  musit  mean  something  more  than  that.  We  think  that  the  meaning 
"  of  these  words  is  this — '  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's  enemies,' 
' '  are  words  of  apposition ;  they  are  words  to  explain  what  is  meant  by 
"  being  adherent  to,  and  we  think  that  if  a  man  be  adherent  to  the  King's 
"enemies  in  his  realm  by  giving  to  them  aid  and  comfort  in  his  realm, 
"  or  if  he  be  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  elsewhere,  that  is,  by  giving 
"  to  them  aid  and  comfort  elsewhere,  he  is  equally  adherent  to  the  King's 
"  enemies,  and  if  he  is  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies,  then  he  commits 
"the  treason  which  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  defines.  Reasons  may  be 
"  given  for  that,  but  we  think  a  very  good  reason  is  to  be  found  in  this, 
"  that  the  subjects  of  the  King  owe  him  allegiance,  and  the  allegiance 
"  follows  the  person  of  the  subject.  He  is  the  King's  liege  wherever 
"  he  may  be,  and  he  may  violate  his  allegiance  in  a  foreign  country  just 
"  as  well  as  he  may  violate  it  in  this  country." 

We  should  like  here  to  refer  to  an  interesting  argument  of  Serjeant 
Sullivan  which  he  presented  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  statute  of 
Edward  III.  could  not  have  meant  to  make  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies 
abroad  a  treasonable  offence.  This  argument  will  be  found  on  page  210. 
Serjeant  Sullivan  said,  "  My  lords,  at  the  time  of  the  statute  there  were 
"  in  England  among  the  great  landowners  and  nobles  a  number  of  persons 
"who  were  under  two  allegiances,  one  in  England,  and,  in  respect  of 
"  lands  which  they  extensively  owned  in  France,  another  allegiance  in 
"  France.  The  limitation  of  levying  war,  and  I  submit  also  the  clear 
' '  limitation  of  adhering,  arose  from  the  fact  that,  being  feudal  subjects  of 
"the  King  of  France  in  respect  of  French  lands,  and  of  the  King  of 
"  England  in  respect  of  English  lands,  the  barons  themselves  would  be 
' '  anxious  to  limit  the  decision  of  treason  in  such  a,  way  as  that  their 
"  English  lands  should  not  be  forfeited  in  respect  of  service  and  homage 
"  rendered  in  respect  of  their  possessions  outside  the  realm  rendered  to 
"  the  King's  enemies.  At  page  460  of  the  first  volume  of  Pollock  and 
"  Maitland  there  is  this  passage — 'The  territory  within  which,  according 
"  '  to  later  law,  subjects  would  be  born  to  the  King  of  England  was  large; 
"  'under  Henry  II.  it  became  vast.  It  comprehended  Ireland;  at  times 
"'(to  say  the  least)  it  comprehended  Scotland;  it  stretched  to  the 
"  '  Pyrenees.  Then,  again,  the  law,  even  of  Bracton's  day,  acknow- 
"  '  ledged  that  a  man  might  be  a  subject  of  the  French  King  and  hold 
"  'land  in  France,  and  yet  be  a  subject  of  the  English  King  and  hold 
"  '  land  in  England.  It  was  prepared  to  meet  the  case  of  a  war  between 
' '  '  the  two  Kings ;  the  amphibious  baron  might  fight  in  person  for  his 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


"  '  lieg«  lord,  but  he  must  also  send  his  due  consignment  of  knights  to  the 
"  '  opposite  army.  In  generation  after  generation  a  Robert  Bruce  holds 
' '  '  lands  on  both  sides  of  the  Scotch  Border ;  no  one  cares  to  remember  on 
"  '  which  side  he  was  born.'  It  was  the  Parliament  that  was  seeking 
"  to  have  a  definition  of  treason,  which,  of  course,  at  that  time  was 
"  very  largely  a  matter  affecting  titles  to  property,  and  developed, 
"indeed,  in  the  early  days  as  part  of  the  law  of  real  property."  Then 
he  says,  "  I  submit  that  is  a  very  plain  reason  why  the  Parliament  would 
' '  be  most  anxious  to  see  that  the  persons  who  very  largely  constituted  the 
"  Parliament  should  be  put  in  a  position  of  having  to  elect,  with  two 
' '  feudal  claims  upon  them,  which  of  their  territories  they  should  forfeit 
"  in  case  their  two  feudal  lords  disagreed  and  went  to  war." 

It  may  occur  to  the  reader  as  strange  that  the  question  whether  a 
man  has  committed  treason  should  have  to  be  determined  on  the  con- 
struction of  a  statute  written  in  a  form  of  French  which  has-  long  been 
obsolete,  and  of  which  the  English  translation  makes  necessary  such  an 
elaborate  exercise  in  parsing  or  analysis  of  sentences.  Moreover,  un- 
ambiguous though  the  opinions  of  Lord  Coke,  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  and  Mr. 
Serjeant  Hawkins  are  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  statute,  it  can  still  hardly 
be  considered  satisfactory  that  our  Courts  in  the  twentieth  century  should 
have  to  accept  their  authority,  as  it  were,  uncritically.  The  law  upon 
which  these  text-writers  were  stating  their  opinions  was  the  product  of  an 
age  whose  institutions  have  entirely  passed  away  and  their  memory  almost 
passed  into  oblivion — was  rapidly  passing  into  oblivion  at  the  time  when 
they  wrote,  four  or  five  hundred  years  after  the  statute  was  passed.  In 
the  thirteenth  century  feudal  institutions  were  in  full  vigour.  Not  much 
more  than  half  a  century  after  Lord  Coke  wrote,  the  last  remnants  of  the 
feudal  system  are  commonly  said  to  have  been  abolished  in  the  reign 
of  Charles  II.  If  our  judges  of  to-day  are  not  to  rely  on  what  Lord  Coke 
lays  down  as  the  law  of  that  far-away  period  of  law,  how  can  they  them- 
selves form  an  independent  opinion  of  it  when  a  case  surprisingly  happens 
involving  that  law?  They  must  necessarily  put  themselves  in  the  same 
mental  or  professional  attitude  towards  Lord  Coke  and  other  ancient 
writers  as  their  comparatively  recent  predecessors,  Chief  Justice  Dallas 
and  Chief  Justice  Best.  The  Courts  have  by  a  sort  of  compulsion  con- 
ferred on  these  text-writers  the  authority  of  legislators,  or,  at  least,  of  the 
Courts  of  law.  So  long  as  this  professional  tradition  is  followed  the 
law  as  expounded  by  the  authoritative  text-writers  may  not  be  more 
difficult  to  ascertain  than  if  it  were,  in  fact,  contained  in  an  Act  of 
Parliament  or  in  the  decisions  of  the  Courts.  It  is  therefore  eminently 
desirable  that  the  Courts  should  not  depart  from  this  tradition,  and  this 
sound  rule  the  Court  of  trial  and  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal  observed 
xxxvi 


Introduction. 

in  the  Casement  trial.  This,  moreover,  can  be  said  for  it,  that  legis- 
lators, presumably,  are  aware  that  the  law  has  been  so-and-so  established 
by  following  the  traditions  of  the  text-writers,  and  if  they  choose  not 
to  interfere  it  may  be  urged  that  the  law  expresses  the  state  of  public 
opinion  of  the  times.  This  has  turned  out  to  be  true  as  regards  the  law 
of  treason  laid  down  and  applied  in  the  Casement  case.  Supposing  that 
the  Legislature,  struck  with  what  must  be  admitted  to  be  the  extraordinarily 
laboured  process  necessary  to  demonstrate  that  treason  can  be  committed 
abroad,  determined  to  pass  an  explicit  law  of  treason,  what  else  could 
Parliament  do  but  embody  the  result  of  the  Casement  trial  ?  They  would 
probably  state  the  law  in  some  such  language  as  that  of  Sir  James  Fitz- 
james  Stephen  in  his  Digest  of  the  Criminal  Law — "  Every  one  commits 
' '  high  treason  who,  either  in  the  realm  or  without  it,  actively  assists  a 
"  public  enemy  at  war  with  the  King."  This  is  exactly  the  law  as  deter- 
mined by  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal  from  their  reading  of  the  statute 
of  Edward  III.,  and  the  interpretation  of  it  by  the  text- writers  whom  they 
really  followed.  Yet  how  much  simpler,  and  more  adapted  to  ordinary 
comprehension,  is  it  expressed  by  Sir  James  Fitzjames  Stephen  than  in 
the  statute  or  in  the  later,  but  still  unmodern  English,  of  those  text- 
writers!  Such  simplicity  of  statement  would  have  made  any  chance  of 
Casement  escaping  the  consequenceis  of  his  guilt  impossible.  Serjeant 
Sullivan  could  not  have  availed  himself  of  the  ambiguities  of  an  ancient 
statute,  or  the  possible  invalidity  of  a  professional  tradition.  Such  an 
opportunity,  however,  is  not  likely  to  occur  again.  The  decision  of  the 
Court  of  Criminal  Appeal  is  now  as  authoritative  as  to  what  the  law  of 
treason  is  as  it  is  consonant  with  public  opinion  as  to  what  that  law  ought 
to  be;  and  Parliamentary  remodelling  of  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  will 
probably  be  deferred  to  a  quite  distant  future. 

After  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal  an  application 
was  made  to  the  Attorney-General  for  his  certificate  under  section  1  (6)  of 
the  Criminal  Appeal  Act,  1907,  authorising  a  further  appeal  by  the  defence 
to  the  House  of  Lords  on  the  ground  that  the  decision  involved  a  point  of 
law  of  exceptional  public  importance,  and  that  it  was  desirable  in  the 
public  interest  that  a  further  appeal  should  be  brought.  The  Attorney- 
General,  however,  in  the  exercise  of  his  discretion,  refused  his  certificate. 

Our  final  remarks  on  the  Casement  trial  must  refer  to  his  execution, 
which  took  place  in  Pentonville  Prison  on  3rd  August,  1916.  The 
execution  was  within  the  walls  of  the  prison ;  that  is  precisely  a,s 
though  Casement's  offence  had  been  murder.  The  Act  of  1868,  which 
enacted  that  the  execution  of  the  death  sentence  must  be  in  prison,  dealt 
only  with  executions  for  the  crime  of  murder,  and  not  for  the  offence  of 
treason.  In  the  latest  edition  of  Stephen's  Digest  of  the  Criminal  Law,  it 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


is  stated  that  the  Act  for  executing  sentence  of  death  within  gaols  do«« 
not  apply  to  cases  of  treason,  and  indeed  by  sections  2  and  16  together 
appears  to  exclude  its  operation  in  such  cases  —  '  '  An  execution  for  treason 
"  would,  therefore,  it  would  seem  have  to  be  public."  Statements 
founded  apparently  on  this  were  also  made  in  legal  journals.  If  this 
had  been  true  a  special  Act  of  Parliament  would  have  been  necessary 
authorising  Casement's  execution  in  private,  unless  the  sentence  were 
commuted,  as  a  public  execution  could  hardly  have  been  tolerated.  Several 
considerations  it  would  seem  have  been  overlooked  in  those  statements.  It 
had  been  said  by  Coke  himself  that  the  King  might  remit  some  part  of 
the  punishment  of  treason,  e.g.,  the  quartering,  so  that  there  might  be 
decapitation  only,  the  usual  judgment  as  to  execution  for  treason  in  Coke's 
day.  By  the  Forfeiture  Act,  1870,  the  punishment  for  high  treason  is 
hanging,  but  the  King,  by  warrant,  countersigned  by  a  Secretary  of  State, 
may  substitute  death  by  decapitation.  The  King  changed  the  sentence 
on  Lady  Lisle,  one  of  Jeffreys'  victims,  from  burning,  the  penalty  on 
women  for  treason  until  1790,  to  execution  by  decapitation.  There 
existed,  therefore,  a  prerogative  of  the  Crown  to  alter  the  details  of  the 
judgment  of  death.  This  prerogative  was  very  frequently  exercised  in 
cases  of  treason  in  respect  of  the  place  of  execution,  so  that  there  are 
examples  of  executions  for  treason  both  in  public  and  in  private  —  on  Tower 
Hill  or  within  the  walls  of  the  Tower,  as  the  case  might  be.  The 
Sheriffs  Act,  1887,  has  more  bearing,  however,  on  the  mode  of  executing 
Casement  than  the  King's  prerogative.  This  Act  provides  that  where 
judgment  of  death  has  been  passed  upon  a  convict  the  Sheriff  of  the 
county  shall  be  charged  with  the  execution  of  such  judgment,  and  may 
carry  such  judgment  into  execution  in  any  prison  which  is  the  common  gaol 
of  his  county. 

After  the  execution  of  Casement  the  following  statement  was  issued 
by  the  Government  :  — 


STATEMENT  ISSUED  BY  THE  GOVERNMENT  ON  ^TH  AUGUST,  1916, 
AFTER  CASEMENT'S  EXECUTION. 

All  the  circumstances  in  the  case  of  Roger  Casement  were  carefully  and 
repeatedly  considered  by  the  Government  before  the  decision  was  reached 
not  to  interfere  with  the  sentence  of  the  law.  He  was  convicted  and 
punished  for  treachery  of  the  worst  kind  to  the  Empire  he  had  served,  and 
as  a  willing  agent  of  Germany. 

The  Irish  rebellion  resulted  in  much  loss  of  life,  both  among  soldiers 
and1  oivilians.  Casement  invoked  and  organised  German  assistance  to  the 
insurrection.  In  addition,  though  himself  for  many  years  a  British  official, 
xxxviii 


Introduction. 

ke  undertook  the  task  of  trying  to  induce  soldiers  of  the  British  Army, 
prisoners  in  the  hands  of  Germany,  to  forswear  their  oath  of  allegiance 
and  join  their  country's  enemies.  Conclusive  evidence  has  come  into  the 
hands  of  the  Government  since  the  trial  that  he  had  entered  into  an 
agreement  with  the  German  Government,  which  explicitly  provided  that 
the  brigade  which  he  was  trying  to  raise  from  among  the  Irish  soldier 
prisoners  might  be  employed  in  Egypt  against  the  British  Crown.  Those 
among  the  Irish  soldier  prisoners  in  Germany  who  resisted  Casement's 
solicitations  of  disloyalty  were  subjected  to  treatment  of  exceptional 
severity  by  the  Germans;  some  of  them  have  since  been  exchanged  as 
invalids,  and  have  died  in  this  country,  regarding  Casement  as  their 
murderer. 

The  suggestion  that  Casement  left  Germany  for  the  purpose  of  trying 
to  stop  the  Irish  rising  was  not  raised  at  the  trial,  and  is  conclusively 
disproved,  not  only  by  the  facts  there  disclosed,  but  by  further  evidence 
which  has  since  become  available. 

Another  suggestion,  that  Casement  was  out  of  his  mind,  is  equally 
without  foundation.  Materials  bearing  on  his  mental  condition  were 
placed  at  the  disposal  of  his  counsel,  who  did  not  raise  the  plea  of  insanity. 
Casement's  demeanour  since  his  arrest,  and  throughout  and  since  the  trial, 
gave  no  ground  for  any  such  defence,  and  indeed  was  sufficient  to  disprove  it. 

DE-KNIGHTING  OP  CASEMENT. 

On  30th  June  it  was  announced  that  the  King  had  been  pleased  to 
direct  the  issue  of  Letters  Patent  under  the  Great  Seal  of  the  United  King- 
dom degrading  Sir  Roger  Casement,  C.M.G.,  from  the  degree  of  Knight 
Bachelor. 

The  announcement  was  also  made  on  the  same  date  that  the  King  has 
been  pleased  to  direct  that  Sir  Roger  Casement,  Knight,  shall  cease  to  be 
a  member  of  the  most  Distinguished  Order  of  Saint  Michael  and  Saint 
George,  of  which  Order  he  was  appointed  a  Companion  in  1905,  and  that 
his  name  shall  be  erased  from  the  Register  of  the  Order. 


xxxix 


Chronological  Table. 


1864,  1st  September. 
1892,  31st  July. 
1895,  27th  June. 
1898,  29th  July. 

1899-1900. 

1900,  20th  August. 

1901,  6th  August. 

1905,  30th  June. 

1906,  13th  August. 

1907,  2nd  December. 

1908,  1st  December. 
1911,  20th  June. 
1911. 
1909-1912. 

1913,  1st  August. 

1914,  4th  August. 
1914,  7th  October. 
1914,  December. 


1915,  19th  February. 

1916,  12th  April. 
1916,  20th  April. 

1916,  21st  April 

(Friday). 

1916,  22nd  April. 
1916,  21st  April. 

1916,  22nd  April. 

1916,  15th,  16th  and 

17th  May. 
1916,  26-29th  June. 

1916,  30th  June. 
1916,  17-18th  July. 
1916,  3rd  August. 
1916,  4th  August. 


Roger  Casement  born  in  County  Dublin. 

Enters  service  of  Niger  Coast  (Oil  Rivers)  Protectorate. 

Appointed  H.M.  Consul  at  Lourenco  Marques. 

Appointed  H.M.  Consul  for  Portuguese  Possessions  in  West 

Africa. 
Employed  on  special  service  at  Cape  Town  and  receives  the 

Queen's  South  African  Medal. 
Transferred  to  Kinchassa  in  the  Congo  State. 
Appointed  Consul  for  part  of  the  French  Congo  Colony. 
MadeaC.M.G. 

Appointed  Consul  for  State  of  San  Paulo  and  Panama. 
Transferred  to  Para. 

Appointed  Consul-General  at  Rio  de  Janeiro. 
Made  a  knight. 

Receives  the  Coronation  Medal. 
Employed  while  Consul-General  at    Rio  de  Janeiro    making 

inquiries  relative  to  the  Putumayo  rubber  industry. 
Retires  on  a  pension. 

Declaration  of  War  between  the  United  Kingdom  and  Germany. 
Makes  the  last  demand  for  his  pension. 
Irish  prisoners  of  war  collected  into  a  German  camp  at  Limburg 

Lahn. 
At  this  time  Casement  is  in  Germany  moving  with  freedom 

about  the  country. 
From    this    time    until    19th    February    Casement    addressed 

meetings  of  Irish  prisoners  urging  them  to  join  the  Irish 

Brigade. 
Casement  reported  to  have  made  a  speech  in  which  he  said, 

"  Now  is  the  time  for  Irishmen  to  fight  against  England." 
Railway  ticket  taken  from  Berlin  to  Wilhelmshaven.     (Found 

at  Tralee  on  21st  April.) 
Red  light  seen  flashing  about  a  mile  away  at  sea  off  Curraghane 

at  9.50  p.m. 
H.M.S.  "Bluebell"  meets  the  "  Aud"  in  the  neighbourhood  of 

Tralee. 

"  Aud"  blown  up  and  sinks  near  the  Daunt  Rock  Lightship. 
Casement,  Bailey,  and  Monteith  land  near  Tralee.     Casement 

seen  on  road  to  Ardfert  at  5.15  a.m.     Casement  discovered 

by  police  in  M'Kenna's  Fort  and  taken  to  Ardfert  Barracks. 
Casement  taken  to  England  in  custody  and  handed  over  to  the 

Metropolitan  Police.     Afterwards,  until  15th  May,  kept  in 

military  custody  in  the  Tower  of  London. 

Magisterial   Inquiry  at  Bow   Street   Police   Court   and    com- 
mittal for  trial. 


Trial  in  the  High  Court  of  Justice,  London, 
and  sentence  of  death. 


Verdict  of  guilty 


Casement  de-knighted. 

Proceedings  in  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal.    Appeal  dismissed. 

Casement  executed  in  Pentonville  Prison. 

Statement  issued  by  the  Government  after  Casement's  execution. 


xl 


I.-THE    TRIAL 


IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUSTICE,  LONDON, 
MONDAY,   26TH  JUNE,   1916, 


BEFORE 


THE  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE  OF  ENGLAND  (VISCOUNT  BEADING), 
MR.  JUSTICE  AVORY, 
MR.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE, 
AND  A  JURY. 


KING'S  CORONER  (Mr.  Leonard  W.  Kershaw). 


Counsel  for  the  Grown — 

THE  ATTORNEY-GENERAL  (The  Right  Hon.   Sir  Frederick 

Smith,  K.C.,  M.P.), 
THE  SOLICITOR- GENERAL  (The  Right  Hon.  Sir  George  Cave, 

K.C.,  M.P.), 
MR.  A.  H.  BODKIN, 
MR.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS, 
MR.  G.  A.  H.  BRANSON, 

Instructed  by  SIR  CHARLES  W.   MATHEWS,  K.C.B., 
Director  of  Public  Prosecutions. 


Counsel  for  the  Prisoner — 

MR.  A.  M.  SULLIVAN  (K.C.  and  Second  Serjeant  of  the  IrisfrBar), 
MR.  T.  ARTEMUS  JONES, 
MR.  J.  H.  MORGAN, 

Instructed  by  MR.  G.  GAVAN  DUFFY,  assisted  by  MR.  MICHAEL 
FRANCIS  DOYLE,  of  the  American  Bar. 


THE    TRIAL. 

First  Day— Monday,  26th  June,   1916. 

AN  USHER  OF  THE  COURT — Oyez.  My  lords  the  King's  Justices  do 
strictly  charge  and  command  all  manner  of  persons  to  keep  silence,  for  they 
will  now  proceed  to>  the  pleads  of  the  Crown  and  arraignment  of  prisoners 
upon  their  lives  and  deaths,  and  all  those  that  are  bound  by  recognisance 
to  give  evidence  against  any  of  the  prisoner®  which  shall  be  at  the  bar, 
let  them  come  forth  and  give  their  evidence,  or  they  will  forfeit  their 
recognisance.  God  stave  the  King. 

The  KING'S  CORONER — Sir  Roger  Casement,  you  stand  indicted  and 
charged  on  the  presentment  of  the  grand  jury  with  the  following  offence  :  — 
High  treason,  by  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  elsewhere  than  in  the 
King's  realm — to  wit,  in  the  Empire  of  Germany — contrary  to  the  Treason 
Act,  1351,  25  Edward  III.,  statute  5,  chapter  2.  The  particulars  of  offence 
alleged  in  the  indictment  are  that  you,  Sir  Roger  David  Casement,  other- 
wise known  as  Sir  Roger  Casement,  knight,  on  the  1st  day  of  December, 
1914,  and  on  divers-  other  days  thereafter,  and  between  that  day  and  the 
21st  April,  1916,  being  then — to  wit,  on  the  said  several  days — a  British 
subject,  and  whilst  on  the  said  several  days  an  open  and  public  war  was 
being  prosecuted  and  carried  on  by  the  German  Emperor  and  his  subjects 
against  our  Lord  the  King  and  his  subjects,  then  and  on  the  said  several 
days  traitorously  contriving  and  intending  to  aid  and  assist  the  said 
enemies  of  our  Lord  the  King  against  our  Lord  the  King  and  his  subjects, 
did  traitorously  adhere  to>  and  aid  and  comfort  the  said  enemies  in  parts 
beyond  the  seas  without  this  realm  of  England — to  wit,  in  the  Empire  of 
Germany. 

The  overt  acts  of  the  said  treason  are  as  follows :  — 

(1)  On  or  about  the  31st  December,  1914,  soliciting  and  inciting  and 
endeavouring   to   persuade   certain    persons,    being    British    subjects    and 
members  of  the  military  forces  of  our  Lord  the  King,  and  being  prisoners  of 
war  then  imprisoned  at  Limburg  Lahn  Camp,  in  the  Empire  of  Germany — 
to  wit,  Michael  O'Connor  and  others  whose  names  are  unknown — to  forsake 
their  duty  and  allegiance  to  our  Lord  the  King,   and  to  join  the  armed 
forces  of  hisi  said  enemies,  and  to  fight  against  our  Lord  the  King  and  his 
subjects  in  the  said  war. 

(2)  On  or  about  the  6th  day  of  January,  1915,  soliciting  and  inciting 
and  endeavouring  to  persuade  certain  persons,  being  British  subjects  and 
members  of  the  military  forces1  of  our  Lord  the  King,  and  being  prisoners 
of   war    then    imprisoned    at    Limburg    Lahn    C'amp,    in    the    Empire    of 
Germany — to  wit,  John  Robinson  and  John  Cronin  and  others  whose  names 
are  unknown — to  forsake  their  duty  and  allegiance  to  our  Lord  the  King, 

2 


The  Right  Hon.  Viscount  Reading, 
Lord  Chief  Justice  of  England. 


The  Trial. 

and  to  join  the  armed  forces  of  his  said  enemies  and  to  fight  against  our 
Lord  the  King  and  his  subjects!  in  the  said  war. 

(3)  On  or  about  the  19th  February,  1915,  soliciting  and  inciting  and 
endeavouring   to    persuade   certain    person®,    being    British    subjects    and 
members,  of  the  military  forces  of  our  Lord  the  King,  and  being  prisoners 
of  war   then  imprisoned    at    Limburg    Lahn   Camp,    in   the   Empire   of 
Germany — to  wit,    John   Robinson,    William   Egan,    Daniel   O'Brien,    and 
James  Wilson,    and   others  whose  names   are  unknown — to   forsake  their 
duty  and  allegiance  to  our  Lord  the  King,  and  to  join  the  armed  forces  of 
his  said  enemies  and  to  fight  against  our  Lord  the  King  and  his  subjects 
in  the  said  war. 

(4)  In  or  about  the  months  of  January  and  February,  1915,  at  Limburg 
Lahn    Camp,    in   the   Empire   of   Germany,    circulating    and   distributing 
and  causing  and  procuring  to  be  circulated  and  distributed  to1  and  amongst 
certain  persons,  being  British  subjects  and  members  of  the  military  forces 
of  our  Lord  the  King,  and  being  prisoners  of  war  imprisoned  at  Limburg 
Lahn   Camp  aforesaid — to  wit,   Michael  O'Connor,   John  Robinson,   John 
Cronin,  William  Egan,   Daniel  O'Brien,  James  Wilson,   and  divers  others 
whose  names  are  unknown — a  certain  leaflet  to  the  tenor  and  effect  following, 
that  is  to  say : — "  Irishmen,  here  is  a  chance  for  you  to  fight  for  Ireland. 
"  You  have  fought  for  England,  your  country's  hereditary  enemy.       You 
"  have  fought  for  Belgium  in  England's  interest,  though  it  was  no  more  to 
"  you  than  the  Fiji  Islands.       Are  you  willing  to  fight  for  your  own  country 
"  with   a  view  to  securing  the  national  freedom  of   Ireland1?     With   the 
<(  moral  and  material  assistance  of  the  German  Government  an  Irish  Brigade 
"  is1  being  formed.       The  object  of  the  Irish  Brigade  shall  be  to  fight  solely 
"  the  cause  of  Ireland,  and  under  no  circumstances  shall  it  be  directed  to 
"any  German  end.       The  Irish  Brigade  shall  be  formed,  and  shall  fight 
' '  under  the  Irish  flag  alone ;   the  men  shall  wear  a  special  distinctively 
"  Irish  uniform   and  have   Irish  officers.        The   Irish   Brigade   shall   be 
"  clothed,  fed,  and  efficiently  equipped  with  arms  and  ammunition  by  the 
"  German  Government.       It  will  be  stationed  near  Berlin,  and  be  treated 
"as   guests  of  the  German   Government.        At  the  end   of  the  war  the 
"  German  Government  undertakes  to  send  each  member  of  the  brigade  who 
' f  may  so  desire  it  to  the  United  States  of  America  with  necessary  means 
"  to  land.       The  Irishmen  in  America  are  collecting  money  for  the  brigade. 

'  Those  men  who  do  not  join  the  Irish  Brigade  will  be  removed  from 
"Limburg  and  distributed  among  other  camps.  If  interested,  see  your 
"  company  commanders.  Join  the  Irish  Brigade  and  win  Ireland's 
"independence!  Remember  Bachelor's  Walk!  God  save  Ireland!" — 
with  intent  to  solicit,  incite,  and  persuade  the  said  last-mentioned  British 
subjects,  being  Irishmen,  to  forsake  their  duty  and  allegiance  to  our  Lord 
the  King,  and  to  aid  and  assist  his  enemies  in  the  prosecution  of  the  said 
war  against  our  Lord  the  King  and  his  subjects1. 

(5)  On  or  about  the  31st  December,  1914,  and  on  diversi  days  there- 
after in  the  months  of  January  and  February,  1915,  persuading  and  pro- 
curing certain  persons  being  members  of  the  military  forces  of  our  Lord 
the  King — to  wit,  Daniel  Julian  Bailey,  one  Quinless,  one  O'Callaghan,  one 
Keogh,  one  Cavanagh,  one  Greer,  and  one  Soanlan,  and  divers  other® 
whose  names  are  unknown — to  the  number  of  about  fifty,  the  said  persons 
being  prisoners  of  war  then  imprisoned  in  Limburg  Lahn  Cainp,  in  the 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Empire  of  Germany,  to  forsake  their  allegiance  to  our  Lord  the  King,  and 
to  join  the  armed  forces  of  his  said  enemies  with  a  view  to  fight  against 
our  Lord  the  King  and  his  subjects  in  the  said  war. 

(6)  On  or  about  the  12th  day  of  April,  1916,  setting  forth  from  the 
Empire  of  Germany  as  a  member  of  a  warlike  and  hostile  expedition  under- 
taken and  equipped  by  the  said  enemies  of  our  Lord  the  King,  having  for 
its  object  the  introduction  into  and  landing  on  the  coast  of  Ireland  of  arms 
and  ammunition  intended  for  use  in  the  prosecution  of  the  said  war  by  the 
said  enemies  against  our  Lord  the  King  and  his  subjects. 

Sir  Roger  David  Casement,  how  saith  you,  do  you  plead  guilty  or  not 
guilty  to  the  charge  of  high  treason? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Before  the  prisoner  pleads  I,  on  his  behalf,  move  to 
quash  the  indictment  on  the  ground  that  no  offence  known  to  the  law  is 
disclosed  by  the  indictment  as  framed.  I  would  not  take  this  course,  in 
view  of  the  decision  in  The  King  v.  Lynch,  had  I  not  grounds  upon  which 
I  can  point  out  to  your  lordships  that  at  the  present  time  the  prisoner 
stands  in  a  totally  different  position  from  the  position  of  the  prisoner  at  the 
time  of  The  King  v.  Lynch,  and  that  the  reasons  why  a  motion  to  quash 
the  indictment  would  not  have  been  heard  in  The  King  v.  Lynch  have 
to-day  been  altered  both  by  statute,  by  circumstances,  and  by  the  nature 
of  the  present  indictment,  which  is  not  the  same  as  that  in  The  King  v. 
Lynch.  At  the  time  of  The  King  v.  Lynch  motion  in  arrest  of  judgment 
might  have  been  an  opportunity  upon  which  the  indictment  could  be 
objected  to — writ  of  error  lay,  for  the  indictment  being  part  of  the  record 
there  was  the  error  on  the  face  of  the  record.  Both  those  remedies  for 
the  prisoner  have,  at  all  events,  been  altered,  and  so  far  as  they  then 
existed  are  no  longer  available  to  him.  Furthermore,  my  lords,  the 
indictment  in  the  present  case  differs  from  The  King  v.  Lynch  in  this  most 
material  particular.  Taking  the  indictment  as  a  whole,  both  the  offences 
charged,  the  particulars,  and  the  overt  acts  alleged,  there  is  not  anywhere 
in  the  indictment  an  allegation  of  any  act  done  anywhere  within  the  King's 
dominions — I  am  not  speaking  merely  of  within  the  realm,  but  within  any 
territory  in  which  His  Majesty  claims  dominion  of  any  kind — and  both  the 

overt  acts  and  the  offences  here  charged  are  entirely  laid 

[Their  lordships  conferred.] 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Mr.  Sullivan,  I  have  no  doubt  you  have  con- 
sidered the  authorities  which  were  cited  both  in  The  King  v.  Lynch  and 
in  a  number  of  earlier  cases  in  which  it  is  said  by  great  judges  that  a 
motion  to  quash  ought  not  to  be  made  at  this  period,  at  any  rate,  in 
cases  of  treason,  cases  of  great  magnitude  as  they  are  called;  you  obviously 
had  those  in  mind  because  of  what  you  said  just  now.  The  same  observa- 
tions would  apply  in  the  present  case  as  in  The  King  v.  Lynch,  although 
I  agree  the  procedure  would  be  different  because  of  the  Criminal  Appeal 
Act  of  1907." 

Mr.   SULLIVAN — I  quite  appreciate  what  your  lordship  means. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  you  had  in  mind  when  you  made  the 
observation  you  did.  It  is  equally  open  to  you,  and  you  are  not  prejudiced 
in  any  way  by  raising  this  point  at  the  end  of  the  case  for  the  prosecution, 
on  which  you  may  have  other  points  to  submit ;  then  one  can  see  whether 
upon  your  submission  any  case  has  been  made  out  in  law  against  the 
prisoner  upon  this  indictment,  which  will  enable  you  to  argue  this  point. 
4 


The  Trial. 

The  Court  thinks  that  that  is  the  more  convenient  way  of  dealing  with  it. 
Of  course  it  is  open  to  the  Attorney- General  to  raise  the  objection  at 
once,  that  he  objects  to  the  motion  to  quash  at  the  moment,  and  that  it 
should  be  done  later ;  but  although  that  has  not  been  done,  we  think  it  is 
a  more  convenient  course  that  it  should  be  taken  at  the  end  of  the  case 
for  the  prosecution  unless  you,  Mr.  Attorney,  say  anything  to  the  contrary. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — No,  I  respectfully  assent  to  what  your  lord- 
ship says. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  shall  not  be  prejudiced  in  any  way,  Mr. 
Sullivan. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  thank  you,  my  lord. 

The  KING'S  CORONER — Sir  Roger  David  Casement,  how  say  you,  do 
you  plead  guilty  or  not  guilty  to  the  high  treason  alleged  in  the  indictment? 

Sir  ROGER  CASEMENT — Not  guilty. 

The  KING'S  CORONER — Sir  Roger  Casement,  have  you  been  served  ten 
days  at  least  since  with  a  copy  of  the  indictment,  a  list  of  the  witnesses, 
and  copies  of  the  panel  of  the  jury? 

Sir  ROGER  CASEMENT — I  have. 

The  CHIEF  CLERK  OP  THE  CROWN  OFFIC?E — Prisoner  at  the  bar,  these 
good  men  that  you  shall  now  hear  called  and  personally  appear  are  the 
jurors  who  are  to  pass  between  our  Sovereign  Lord  the  King  and  you 
upon  your  trial  of  life  and  death;  if  therefore  you  will  challenge  them  or 
any  of  them  you  must  challenge  them  as  they  come  to  the  book  to  be 
eworn,  and  before  they  are  sworn,  and  you  shall  be  heard. 

The  following  jurors,  not  having  been  challenged, 

Frederick  Thomas  Wheeler,  18  Chambers  Lane,  Willesden,  Shipping  Clerk, 

Ernest  William  West,  10  Balmoral  Road,  Willesden,  Schoolmaster, 

John  Charles  Watts,  37  Buchanan  Gardens,  Willesden,  Warehouseman, 

Albert  John  Abbott,  68  Caversham  Avenue,  Palmers  Green,  N.,  Clerk, 

Herbert  James  Scoble,  41  Ravensdale  Road,  Hackney,  Clerk, 

Richard  Charles  Scantlebury,  2  Trederwen  Road,  Hackney,  Agent, 

Albert  George  Scopes,  261  Mare  Street,  Hackney,  Leather  Merchant, 

John  Burden,  70  Drakefield  Road,  Balham,  Wandsworth,  Mechanical  Engineer, 

William  Bowers  Card,  64  Northfield  Avenue,  Baling,  Baker, 

William  Cole,  26  Coulson  Street,  Chelsea,  Coachman, 

Hyman  Saunders,  68  Amhurst  Road,  Hackney,  Tailor,  and 

Albert  Sydney  Ansley,  42  Osborne  Road,  Palmers  Green,  Bank  Clerk, 

were  each  separately  sworn  in  the  following  terms :  — 

' '  You  shall  well  and  truly  try  and  true  deliverance  make  between 

"  our  Sovereign  Lord  the  King  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar 

"  whom  you   shall  have  in  charge,    and   a  true  verdict   give 

"  according  to  the  evidence.     So  help  you  God." 

The  USHER — If  any  one   can  inform  my  lords  the  King's  Justices, 

or  the  King's  Attorney-General,  ere  this  inquest  be  now  taken  between 

our  Sovereign  Lord  the  King  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  of  any  treason, 

murder,   felony,  or  misdemeanour  committed  or  done  by  him,  let  them 

come  .forth  and  they  shall  be  heard ;  for  the  prisoner  stands  at  the  bar 

upon  his  deliverance;  and  all  others  that  are  bound  by  recognisances  to 

give  evidence  against  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  come  forth  and  give  evidence, 

or  else  you  forfeit  your  recognisances. 

The  KING'S  CORONER — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  prisoner  stands 
indicted  by  the  name  of  Sir  Roger  David  Casement,  and  is  charged  with 

5 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


the  following  offence : — "  High  treason  by  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies 
"elsewhere  than  in  the  King's  realm — to  wit,  in  the  Empire  of  Germany 
" — contrary  to  the  Treason  Act,  1351  (25  Edward  III.,  stat.  5,  cap.  2)." 
The  particulars  of  the  offence  are  that  Sir  Roger  David  Casement,  knight, 
on  the  1st  day  of  December,  1914,  and  on  divers  other  days  thereafter, 
and  between  that  day  and  the  2Lst  of  April,  1916,  being  then — to  wit, 
on  the  said  several  days — a  British  subject,  and  whilst  on  the  said  several 
days  an  open  and  public  war  was  being  prosecuted  and  carried  on  by  the 
German  Emperor  and  his  subjects  against  our  Lord  the  King  and  his 
subjects,  then  and  on  the  said  several  days  traitorously  contriving  and 
intending  to  aid  and  assist  the  said  enemies  of  our  Lord  the  King  against 
our  Lord  the  King  and  his  subjects,  did  traitorously  adhere  to  and  aid 
and  comfort  the  said  enemies  in  parts  beyond  the  seas  without  this  realm 
of  England,  to  wit,  in  the  Empire  of  Germany.  The  indictment  sets  out 
the  overt  acts  that  are  alleged  of  that  treason.  Upon  that  indictment  the 
prisoner  hath  been  arraigned,  and  upon  his  arraignment  he  has  pleaded 
that  he  is  not  guilty.  Your  charge  therefore  is  to  inquire  whether  he  be 
guilty  or  not  guilty  upon  that  indictment  and  to  hearken  to  the  evidence. 


Opening  Speech  for  Prosecution. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — May  it  please  your  lordships :  gentlemen  of 
the  jury,  I  appear  with  my  learned  friends  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  to 
support  the  charge  of  high  treason  without  the  realm  against  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar,  who  has  the  advantage  of  being  defended  by  my  learned 
friends,  Mr.  Sullivan,  Mr.  Artemus  Jones,  and  Mr.  Morgan. 

The  charge  upon  which  the  prisoner  is  arraigned  is  a  very  grave 
one.  The  law  knows  none  graver.  This  inquiry  will  therefore  receive,  as 
it  deserves  and  requires,  your  close  and  constant  attention. 

The  law  of  treason,  gentlemen,  is  principally  founded  upon  a  statute 
as  old  as  the  reign  of  King  Edward  III.  Treason  is  the  doing  or  design- 
ing anything  which  would  lead  to  the  death,  bodily  harm,  or  restraint  of 
the  King,  levying  war  against  him  within  the  realm,  or  adhering  to  his 
enemies  within  or  without  the  realm.  It  is  alleged  here  by  the  Crown 
that  the  prisoner  has  been  guilty  of  this  most  heinous  crime,  that  he  has 
adhered  to  the  King's  enemies  and  has  attempted  to  seduce  His  Majesty's 
soldiers  from  their  allegiance.  It  will  be  for  you  to  consider,  when  you 
know  all  the  facts,  whether  the  Crown  has  proved  these  allegations,  and 
whether,  if  they  be  proved,  there  is  any  circumstance  of  extenuation 
which  can  be  urged ;  or  whether,  upon  the  other  hand,  the  crimes  which 
it  is  alleged  the  prisoner  has  committed  are  aggravated  by  the  relation- 
ship  in  which  he  formerly  stood  to  the  Sovereign  whom  he  has  betrayed 
and  the  country  at  which  he  has  struck. 

It  is  therefore  desirable  that  you  should  hear  in  some  detail  what 
has  been  the  career  of  the  prisoner.  He  is  an  able  and  cultivated  man, 
versed  in  affairs  and  experienced  in  political  matters.  He  was  not,  as  you 
will  hear,  a  life-long  rebel  against  England,  and  all  that  England  stood 
for,  as  others  well  known  in  Irish  history  have  been.  Let  me  inform  you, 
as  briefly  as  I  can,  of  the  principal  stages  in  a  career  which  has  not  been 
without  public  distinction,  and  which  was  directed — it  may  be  remembered 
even  now  to  his  credit — not  to  the  destruction  of  the  power  of  this  great 
Empire,  but  to  its  consolidation  and  development. 

The  prisoner  was  born  in  County  Dublin  on  1st  September  in  the  year 
1864.  He  entered  the  service  of  the  Niger  Coast  (Oil  Rivers)  Protectorate 
on  31st  July,  1892,  at  the  age  of  twenty-eight.  He  was  appointed  three 
years  later,  on  27th  June,  1895,  to  be  Her  Majesty's  Consul  in  the 
Portuguese  Province  of  Louren9o  Marques,  with  a  residence  at  Lourengo 
Marques.  He  continued  in  this  employment  for  three  years,  and  on  29th 
July,  1898,  he  became  Consul  for  the  Portuguese  Possessions  in  West 
Africa,  south  of  the  Gulf  of  Guinea.  He  was  employed  on  special  service 
at  Cape  Town  during  the  war  in  South  Africa,  from  1899  to  1900;  and  he 
received,  when  the  hostilities  ended,  the  Queen's  South  African  medal. 
He  did  not  refuse  this  decoration  for  assistance  rendered  to  England 

7 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Attorney-General 

during  this  war,  although  it  was  a  war  of  which  many  Irishmen  pro- 
foundly disapproved,  and  we  may  perhaps  therefore  reasonably  assume 
that  at  the  age  of  thirty-six  the  crimes  and  delinquencies  of  this  Empire 
had  not  engaged  his  attention,  or  at  least  had  not  conquered  his  intelli- 
gence. On  20th  August,  1900,  he  was  transferred  to  Kinchassa,  in  the 
Congo  State;  and  he  was  appointed,  in  addition,  on  6th  August,  1901, 
to  be  Consul  for  part  of  the  French  Congo  Colony.  From  31st  December, 
1904,  he  was  seconded  for  one  year;  and  afterwards  for  six  months  from 
31st  December,  1905.  On  30th  June,  1905,  he  was  made  a  C.M.G.,  a 
recognition  of  his  public  services  which  he  did  not  disdain.  He  was 
appointed  Consul  for  the  States  of  San  Paulo  and  Parana,  with  a  residence 
at  Santos,  on  13th  August,  1906.  On  2nd  December,  1907,  he  was  trans- 
ferred to  Para;  and  on  the  let  December,  1908,  he  was  promoted  to  be 
Consul-General  at  Rio  de  Janeiro.  On  20th  June,  1911,  he  was  made 
a,  knight.  In  1911,  the  same  year,  he  received  the  Coronation  medal. 
The  State  of  Goyaz  was  added  to  the  district  of  the  Consul- General  at 
Rio  de  Janeiro ;  and  a  new  commission  was  issued  to  him  on  2nd  December, 
1912.  From  1909  to  1912  he  was  employed,  while  titular  Consul-General 
at  Rio  de  Janeiro,  in  making  certain  inquiries  relative  to  the  rubber 
industry.  On  1st  August,  1913,  after,  as  the  facts  which  I  have  stated 
show,  a  considerable  career  of  public  usefulness,  he  was  retired  on  a 
pension. 

Gentlemen,  this  pension  had  been  honourably  earned,  and  it  would 
therefore  be  neither  necessary  nor  proper  to  refer  to  it  were  it  not  for 
the  sinister  and  wicked  activities  of  the  period  which  I  am  approaching. 
But  it  is  necessary  now  to  observe  what  quality  of  conduct  the  prisoner 
judged  in  his  conscience  to  be  consistent  with  the  receipt  of  a  pension 
from  this  country.  Government  pensions  are  paid  quarterly,  and  on  each 
occasion  must  be  formally  claimed.  The  claim  is  made  by  a  statutory- 
declaration  which  eets  out  the  services  for  which  the  pension  was  awarded 
and  the  amount  claimed.  The  prisoner  made  five  such  declarations,  the 
first  on  2nd  October,  1913,  and  the  last  on  7th  October,  19H.  They 
are  in  the  possession  of  the  Crown  and  will  be  produced.  No  payment 
has  been  made  since  the  last  date,  nor  would  it  have  been  made  if 
claimed,  as  by  that  time  the  Treasury  had  directed,  for  reasons  which 
you  will  understand,  that  this  pension  should  cease  to  be  paid. 

I  informed  you  that  on  20th  June,  1911,  he  received  the  honour  of 
knighthood,  and  it  is  perhaps  worth  while,  having  regard  to  the  singular 
later  developments  of  his  career,  to  read  the  letter,  dated  19th  June, 
1911,  in  which  he  replied  to  the  notification  communicated  to  him  by 
Sir  Edward  Grey  of  His  Majesty's  intention  to  bestow  a  knighthood 
upon  him.  He  wrote,  this  enemy  of  England,  this  friend  of  Germany, 
this  extreme  and  irreconcilable  patriot,  in  the  following  terms :  — 

The  Savoy,  Den  ham,  Bucks. 
Dear  Sir  Edward  Grey, 

I  find  it  very  hard  to  choose  the  words  in  which  to  make 

acknowledgment  of  the  honour  done  me  by  the  King.  I  am  much  moved  at  the 
proof  of  confidence  and  appreciation  of  my  service  on  the  Putumayo  conveyed  to 
me  by  your  letter,  wherein  you  tell  me  that  the  King  had  been  graciously  pleased 
upon  your  recommendation  to  confer  upon  me  the  honour  of  knighthood.  I  am, 
8 


Opening  Speech  for  Prosecution. 

Attorney-General 

indeed,  grateful  to  you  for  this  signal  assurance  of  your  personal  esteem  and  support. 
I  am  very  deeply  sensible  of  the  honour  done  to  me  by  His  Majesty.  I  would  beg 
that  my  humble  duty  might  be  presented  to  His  Majesty  when  you  may  do  me  the 
honour  to  convey  to  him  my  deep  appreciation  of  the  honour  he  has  been  so 
graciously  pleased  to  confer  upon  me. 

1  am,  dear  Sir  Edward, 

Yours  sincerely, 

ROGER  CASEMENT. 

Gentlemen,  I  read  that  letter  because  you  ought  to  remember  that 
those  were  the  feelings  on  the  19th  June,  1911,  towards  the  country 
which  he  had  served  for  so  long,  and  towards  the  Sovereign  of  that 
country,  of  a  man  of  mature  years — he  was,  I  think,  forty -seven  years  old 
at  the  time  that  letter  was  written — a  man  who  had  had  nineteen  years' 
experience  of  the  methods  of  government  of  this  country,  in  which  indeed 
he  had,  and  not  without  credit,  borne  a  part.  Such  a  man  writes  in 
terms  of  gratitude,  a  little  unusual,  perhaps,  in  their  warmth,  and  in  the 
language  almost  of  a  courtier,  to  express  his  pleasure  at  the  title  with 
which  his  Sovereign  had  rewarded  his  career.  And  he  presents  his  humble 
duty  to  the  King,  and  he  begs  that  his  deep  appreciation  of  the  gracious 
honour  may  be  expressed  to  His  Majesty.  And  this  was  in  1911.  The 
history  of  the  relations  of  England  and  Ireland  up  to  that  date  were  as 
well  known  then  as  they  are  to-day.  The  controversies,  bitter  and 
protracted,  often  tragic,  springing  from  those  relations  were  either  the 
commonplaces  of  contemporary  politics,  or  they  filled  the  better  known 
pages  of  our  elementary  histories.  And  well  understanding  these  con- 
troversies, fully  versed  in  the  wrongs  of  which  Irishmen  were  fruitful  in 
complaint,  knowing  England's  ideals  of  government  well — for  at  the  out- 
posts of  Empire  he  had  carried  them  out — he  sends  his  humble  duty  to  his 
Sovereign.  What  occurred  between  1911  and  1914  to  affect  and  corrupt 
the  prisoner's  mind  I  cannot  tell  you,  for  I  do  not  know.  I  only  know 
of  one  difference.  The  Sovereign  of  the  country  to  whom  his  humble 
duty  was  sent  in  1911  was  in  that  year  the  ruler  of  a  great  and  wealthy 
nation,  unequalled  in  resources,  living  at  peace,  unassailed,  and  it  almost 
seemed  una,ssailable.  In  1914  this  same  nation  was  struggling  for  its 
possessions,  for  its  honour,  for  its  very  existence  in  the  most  prodigious  war 
which  has  ever  tested  human  fortitude.  To  the  Sovereign  of  that  country 
in  the  hour  of  its  unchallenged  greatness  he  sends  his  humble  duty.  It  will 
be  my  task  now  to  acquaint  you  with  the  method  in  which  he  carried  out  his 
humble  duty  in  times  dark  enough  to  test  the  value  of  the  unsolicited  pro- 
fessions he  was  so  forward  in  making. 

I  have  informed  you,  gentlemen,  in  the  most  general  outline  of  the 
antecedents  of  the  prisoner,  as  those  antecedents  are  known  to  the  Crown. 
I  cannot  describe  his  movements  after  the  outbreak  of  war  until  the 
happening  of  certain  events  to  which  it  now  becomes  necessary  to  refer.  I 
cannot,  I  say,  describe  his  movements,  but  I  have  told  you  that,  and  you 
will  recollect  this  date,  the  last  demand  for  his1  pension  was  dated  7th 
October,  1914.  Between  the  months  of  September  and  December,  1914, 
the  fortunes  of  the  struggle  in  France  were  such  that  a  large  number  of 
British  soldiers  were  taken  captive  by  the  enemy,  and  amongst  those 

9 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Attorney-General 

prisoners  were  many  brave  Irish  soldiers.  These  soldiers  taken,  as  I  said, 
into  captivity  were  distributed,  apparently  quite  normally  in  the  month  of 
December,  1914,  among  various  prisons  in  Germany,  and  they  were  treated 
neither  worse  nor  better  than  other  prisoners'  captured  from  the  British 
Expeditionary  Force.  But  in  or  about  the  month  of  December,  1914, 
prisoners  of  war  belonging  to  various-  Irish  regiments  were  removed  from 
the  different  camps  in  which  they  were  then  imprisoned,  and  were  collected 
into  a  large  camp  at  Limburg  Lahn.  And  it  became  evident  from  what 
followed  that  they  were  so  collected  for  a  special  purpose,  which  had  been 
the  result  of  consideration  and  calculation  on  the  part  of  the  German 
Government. 

At  that  time  the  prisoner  was  in  Germany,  moving  with  freedom  about 
the  country,  apparently  an  honoured  guest  of  the  German  nation.  The 
full  story  of  the  circumstances  under  which  he  went  to  Germany  it  is;  not  in 
my  power  to  tell.  But  it  is  evident  that  the  part  he  was  to  play  was 
that  of  a  man  willing,  and  it  was  hoped  able,  to  seduce  from  their  allegiance 
-to  the  King,  their  Sovereign  and  his,  the  Irish  prisoners  of  war  who, 
after  fighting  valiantly  for  the  Empire,  had  been  captured,  as  so  many 
brave  soldiers  of  all  nations  have  been  captured  in  this  war.  One  can 
imagine  the  type  of  these  private  soldiers,  aliens  and  prisoners,  in  an 
enemy  country.  We  may  perhaps  surmise  from  the  very  attempt  now  to 
be  described  that  they  were  simple,  unlettered  men,  unlikely,  it  may  have 
been  thought,  to  resist  a  specious  appeal.  These  men  were  collected  by 
the  Germans  for  the  purpose  of  listening  to  addresses  or  lectures  on  Irish 
history  and  other  matters  from  the  prisoner,  who,  like  themselves,  had 
embraced  the  service  and  eaten  the  bread  of  this  country.  They  were 
assembled  at  Limburg,  on  more  than  one  occasion,  and  were  then 
addressed  collectively,  and  in  some  cases  individually,  by  Casement,  who 
moved  about  the  camp  freely,  and  with  the  full  knowledge  and  approval 
of  the  Germans.  The  Germans,  as  you  know,  are  very  expert  in  this 
species  of  activity.  Ireland  has  been  disaffected.  Here  there  was  a 
fruitful  soil  for  seduction.  Even  then  it  may  be  that  the  scheme  of  an 
eventual  landing  in  Ireland  had  been  conceived  by  this  thoroughly  resource- 
ful and  unscrupulous  people.  The  Irish  prisoners  of  war  were  there — 
emotional,  excitable,  uninformed,  the  easy  victims,  it  was  hoped,  of 
seduction.  Nor  was  the  seducer  lacking;  the  letter- writer  of  1911  was 
to  be  tested. 

Whether  it  entered  his  head  that  he  was  exposing  poor  men,  his 
inferiors  in  education,  age,  and  knowledge  of  the  world,  to  the  penalties  of 
high  treason  I  cannot  tell  you,  for  I  do  not  know.  Whether  he  conceived  of 
the  innocent  blood  which  was  so  soon  to  flow  in  the  unhappy  country  to 
which  he  professed  devotion  I  cannot  tell  you,  for  I  do  not  know.  But 
I  shall  be  in  a  position  to  call  before  you  evidence  which  will  show  that 
between  the  middle  of  December,  1914,  and  19th  February,  1915,  the 
prisoner  repeatedly  addressed  these  prisoners  of  war.  I  do  not  think  it 
likely  that  he  dwelt  upon  hisi  own  connection  with  the  country  which  had 
afforded  him  a  career,  which  had  decorated  him  with  a  title,  and  from 
which  he  had  accepted  a  pension.  I  suspect  he  did  not  inform  them  that 
10 


Opening  Speech  for   Prosecution. 

Attorney-General 

three  years  before  he  had  sent  his  humble  duty  to  the  Sovereign  whose 
soldiers — while  their  heart®  were  heavy  with  captivity — he  was  attempting 
to  seduce  and  to  corrupt.  I  cannot  give  you  a  full  description  of  his 
rhetoric.  I  can  only  supply  such  fragments  of  his  appeals  as  happened 
to  linger  in  the  minds  of  those  whose  evidence  is  available  for  the  Crown. 
But  I  pause  very  deliberately  to  say  that  if  it  be  possible  to  give  an  ex- 
planation of  the  original  journey  of  the  prisoner  to  Germany,  which  is 
consistent  with  the  duty  which  he  owed,  and  which  he  had  so  recently 
professed  to  his  Sovereign  and  his  country,  I  hope  that  his  explanation 
will  be  put  forward  by  the  very  experienced  counsel  by  whom  he  has  the 
advantage  of  being  defended.  But  whether  or  not  his  original  journey  to 
Germany  is  a  step  which  can  be  explained,  justified,  or  reconciled  with  his 
admitted  allegiance,  it  must,  I  think,  be  evident  that  a  wholly  different 
class  of  considerations  arises  when  one  considers  the  quality  of  his  acts1  in 
relation  to  these  Irish  prisoners. 

He  introduced  himself  to  them — such  was  the  tenor  of  his  address  on 
more  than  one  occasion — as  "  Sir  Roger  Casement,  the  organiser  of  the 
"Irish  Volunteers."  He  stated  that  he  was  forming  an  Irish  Brigade, 
and  he  invited  all  the  Irish  prisoners  of  war  to  join  it.  He  pointed  out 
repeatedly,  and  with  emphasis,  that  in  his  opinion  everything  was  to  be 
gained  for  Ireland  by  Germany  winning  the  war;  and  that  the  Irish 
soldiers  who  were  listening  to  his  addresses  had  the  best  opportunity  they 
had  ever  had  of  striking  a  blow  for  Ireland  by  entering  the  service  of 
the  enemies  of  this  country.  He  said  that  those  who  joined  the  Irish 
Brigade  would  be  sent  to  Berlin;  they  would  become  the  guests  of  the 
German  Government;  and  in  the  event  of  Germany  winning  a  sea  battle 
he  (the  speaker)  would  land  a  brigade  in  Ireland  to  defend  the  country 
against  the  enemy  England.  And  that  in  the  event  of  Germany  losing  the 
war  either  he  or  the  Imperial  German  Government  would  give  each  man  in 
the  brigade  a  bonus1  of  from  £10  to  £20,  with  a  free  passage  to  America- 
Such  were  the  temptations  unfolded  to  his  simple  listeners  by  the  man 
who  reconciled  it  with  his  duty  to  address  such  persuasions  to  men  in  the 
straits,  the  bewilderment,  and  perhaps  the  despair  in  which  these  prisoners 
then  were.  Gentlemen,  to  the  honour  of  Ireland,  let  it  be  recorded  that 
the  vast  majority  of  the  Irish,  prisoners  treated  the  rhetoric,  and  the 
persuasions,  and  the  corruptions  of  the  prisoner  with  contempt.  He  was 
received  with  hisses,  and  was  on  at  least  one  occasion  driven  from  the 
oamp.  The  Munster  Fusiliers  were  particularly  prominent  in  their  loyal 
resentment  of  the  treacherous  proposals  made  to  them.  One  private  in 
that  regiment  actually  struck,  so  it  isi  recorded,  the  prisoner,  who  was 
saved  from  further  violence  by  the  intervention  of  an  escort  of  Prussian 
Guards,  who  had  been  assigned  to  him  for  his  protection  by  a  nation  which 
thinks  of  everything. 

Those  Irish  prisoners  who  unfavourably  received  the  proposals  made 
to  them  by  Casement  were  punished  by  a  reduction  in  their  rations.  Two 
men,  Robinson  and  O'Brien,  who  will  be  called  before  you,  and  who  refused 
to  join  the  Irish  Brigade,  were  transferred  to  another  camp  for  punishment, 
and  were  then  put  upon  short  rations.  The  few  men  who  were  seduced 
from  their  allegiance  by  the  arguments  addressed  to  them  by  the  prisoner 
were  rewarded  by  being  given  a  green  uniform  with  a  harp  and  shamrock 

11 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Attorney-General 

worked  upon  it,  by  unusually  liberal  rations,  both,  in  quality  and  in  quantity, 
and  by  the  concession  of  greater  leisure  and  liberty.  Amongst  the  Irish 
prisoners  in  Limburg  at  this  time  was  a  man  called  Bailey.  Bailey,  of 
whom  you  will  hear  more,  was  observed  by  witnesses  who  will  be  called 
before  you  to  be  wearing  this  green  uniform  with  the  harp  upon  the 
collar  and  upon  the  cap,  and  to  be  carrying  side-arms  after  the  German 
fashion.  Evidence  will  be  offered  to  you  that  Bailey  joined  the  so-called 
Irish  Brigade.  He  was,  I  think,  at  once  promoted  to  the  rank  of  sergeant 
in  that  brigade  by  the  Germans,  who  were  assisting  and  encouraging  for 
their  own  purposes  the  formation  of  the  brigade.  The  witnesses  to  these 
acts  of  high  treason  and  of  treachery  include — Private  Oonin,  Royal 
Munster  Fusiliers;  William  Egan,  lance-corporal,  Royal  Irish  Rifles; 
Corporal  Michael  O'Connor,  Royal  Irish  Rifles;  Private  James  Wilson, 
Dublin  Fusiliers;  Private  William  Dooley,  Royal  Irish  Regiment;  Trooper 
Daniel  O'Brien,  19th  Hussars;  Corporal  John  Robinson,  Royal  Army 
Medical  Corps;  Private  Michael  Moore,  Royal  Army  Medical  Corps; 
Private  John  Neill,  2nd  Battalion  18th  Royal  Irish  Regiment.  All  these 
men  with  one  exception  were  wounded,  and  have  since  been  exchanged,  and 
owing  to  the  accident  of  their  exchange  they  are  available  here  at  the  dis- 
posal of  the  Crown  to  give  evidence  in  order  to  establish  the  occurrences 
which  in  general  outline  I  have  indicated  to  you. 

At  this  point,  gentlemen,  there  is  again  a  hiatus  in  the  information 
which  the  Crown  is  in  a  position  to  lay  before  the  Court.  I  have  said 
enough  to  indicate  to  you  that  in  his  addresses  to  the  prisoners  Casement 
was  in  the  habit  of  holding  out,  as  the  military  adventure  for  which  this 
brigade  was  destined,  a  landing  in  Ireland,  which  was  described  as  an 
attempt  to  free  Ireland  from  the  English  enemy ;  and  it  is  not  necessary 
for  me  to  do  more  at  this  stage  than  to  point  out  that  the  Germans  were 
evidently  not  concerned  to  use  Casement  for  the  purpose  of  forming  a 
brigade  in  order  to  add  one  more  to  the  uniforms, .  already  considerable  in 
number,  in  the  German  Army.  The  inference  will  probably  be  drawn  by 
jou  that  it  was  intended  then  that  such  men  as  could  be  seduced  from 
their  allegiance  should  form  the  first  fruits  of  a  body  which  should  be 
actually  used  for  the  purpose  of  raising  armed  insurrection  in  Ireland 
against  the  forces  of  the  Crown,  and  of  acting  as  a  trained  and  instructed 
nucleus  round  which  the  disaffected  section  of  the  population  might  rally 
and  grow. 

The  treason  which  is  charged  against  the  prisoner  is  the  treason  which 
consists  of  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies  in  the  enemy  country,  and  in 
relation  to  that  treason  evidence  will  be  given  to  you  of  many  overt  acts ; 
of  the  attempt  to  seduce,  and  in  some  cases  of  the  actual  seduction  of 
His  Majesty's  soldiers  from  loyal  allegiance  to  His  Majesty;  the  plotting 
and  contriving  to  effect  a  hostile  landing,  with  stores  and  arms,  and  with 
armed  men  in  His  Majesty's  dominions. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  said  as  much  as  is  necessary  at  this  stage  to 
inform  you  of  the  treasonable  activities  of  the  prisoner  in  Germany.  We 
must  now  pass  to  that  unhappy  country  which  has  been  the  victim  in  its 
history  of  so  many  cruel  and  cynical  conspiracies,  but  surely  never  of  a 
conspiracy  more  cruel  and  more  cynical  than  this. 
12 


Opening  Speech  for  Prosecution. 

Attorney-General 

The  scene  of  the  events  presently  to  be  described  was  on  the  Kerry 
coast  near  Tralee  Bay,  on  a  lonely  and  wind-swept  shore,  the  home  of  a 
scanty  fisher  population  and  of  a  few  small  farmers.  On  this  shore,  on 
Thursday  night,  20th  April,  1916,  at  9.50  p.m.,  a  labourer,  called  Hussey, 
looking  oceanwards,  saw  a  red  light  flashing  about  a  mile  away  at  sea  off 
Curraghane — a  light  which  it  is  possible  was  not  unconnected  with  the 
happenings  afterwards.  And  contemporaneously,  or  almost  contem- 
poraneously, with  the  landing,  of  which  I  shall  say  a  word  later,  of  the 
prisoner  and  his  companions,  a  vessel,  carrying  arms,  approached  Tralee 
in  circumstances  which  will  satisfy  you,  I  apprehend,  that  those  on  board 
that  vessel  carrying  arms  were  taking  part  in  a  common  adventure  with 
the  prisoner  and  his  party,  who  were  conveyed  to  this  country  by  other 
means,  which  you  will,  I  anticipate,  conclude  were  also  of  German  origin. 

The  enterprise  of  the  prisoner  and  his;  friends  had,  happily,  not 
eluded  the  vigilance  of  the  Navy.  His  Majesty's  vessel,  the  "  Bluebell," 
had  become  generally  aware  that  a  hostile  scheme  was  being  attempted, 
and  if  I  describe  to  you  what  was  observed  by  those  on  board  the  sloop 
"  Bluebell  "  in  relation  to  the  vessel  carrying  arms,  you  will  be  in  a 
position  to  appreciate  the  general  character  of  the  plan  which  was  formed 
in  order  to  give  effect  to  the  high  treason  conceived  and  commenced  on 
the  soil  of  Germany.  The  "  Bluebell,"  on  21st  April  (Good  Friday), 
was  patrolling  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Tralee  when  she  sighted  a  suspicious 
ship  flying  the  Norwegian  ensign,  and  with  four  Norwegian  ensigns 
painted  forward  and  aft  on  each  side  of  the  vessel.  The  captain  of  the 
"  Bluebell "  hoisted  a  signal  demanding  the  name  of  the  apparently  Nor- 
wegian vessel,  and  making  inquiry  about  her  destination.  The  reply  was 
given  that  she  was  the  "  Aud,"  of  Bergen,  bound  for  Genoa.  The 
captain  of  the  "  Bluebell  "  informed  the  vessel  that  she  must  follow  the 
"Bluebell  "  to  harbour.  The  captain  of  the  "  Aud  "  answered — and  it 
was  noticed  that  he  spoke  in  broken  English — "  Where  are  you  taking 
"me  to?  "  The  "  Bluebell  "  thereupon  intimated  that  she  would  go 
ahead  and  that  the  "  Aud "  was  to  follow  immediately  after.  The 
"  Bluebell  "  then  proceeded  to  go  ahead,  but  the  "  Aud  "  remained  with- 
out moving,  and  a  shot  was  accordingly  fired  across  her  bows.  She  then 
asked,  "  What  am  I  to  do?  "  and  was  again  ordered  to  follow,  and  there- 
after she  did  follow.  She  was  escorted  by  the  "  Bluebell  "  without  further 
trouble  or  incident  until  next  morning,  when  they  passed  abreast  of  the 
lighthouse  not  far  from  Queenstown.  Then  the  "  Aud  "  hoisted  a  signal, 
'  Where  am  I  to  anchor  upon  arriving  in  harbour?  "  She  was  informed 
that  she  was  to  await  orders,  but  meanwhile  to  continue  to  follow  the 
"  Bluebell."  On  nearing  the  Daunt  lightship  the  "  Bluebell  "  headed 
for  the  harbour  and  the  "  Aud  "  stopped  her  engines.  The  "  Bluebell  " 
went  back  to  her,  and,  when  about  a  cable's  length  away,  those  on  board 
the  "  Bluebell  "  saw  a  small  cloud  of  white  smoke  issuing  from  the  star- 
board side  of  her  after-hold.  At  the  same  time  two  German  ensigns  were 
broken,  at  her  mast  and  two  boats  were  lowered,  one  from  the  port  side 
and  the  other  from  the  starboard  side.  The  "  Bluebell  "  fired  one  round 
across  the  bows  of  the  (t  Aud,"  and  thereupon  the  boats  hoisted  two  flags 
of  truce,  and  the  men  put  up  their  hands.  They  were  then  taken 
prisoners  on  board  the  "  Bluebell,"  and  placed  under  armed  guard. 

13 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Attorney-General 

These  men  were  German  bluejackets,  doubtless  a  picked  crew,  nine 
sailors  and  three  officers.  The  "  Aud  "  sank  almost  immediately  after- 
wards, about  a  mile  and  a  quarter  S.S.E.  of  the  Daunt  Rock  lightship. 
Since  then  divers  have  ascertained  that  her  cargo  consisted  of  rifles,  not 
German  rifles,  but  Russian  rifles  of  the  1905  pattern. 

Gentlemen,  you  will  not  forget  that,  so  far  as  it  is  proper  in  affairs 
of  this  kind  to  connect  these  matters  by  inference,  we  have  established 
that  the  prisoner  in  Germany  was  attempting  to  seduce  Irish  soldiers 
from  their  allegiance  with  the  object  of  forming  a  brigade  which,  or  some 
of  whose  members,  were  to  take  part  in  an  insurrection  in  Ireland.  We 
shall  find  the  prisoner  Bailey  a  member  of  this  brigade,  and  a  man  called 
Monteith,  as  to  whom  I  can  give  little  information  to  the  Court,  and 
who  has  avoided  arrest — we  shall  find  them  being  conveyed  evidently  with 
a  definite  method  and  purpose,  but  by  an  agency  which  I  cannot  explain  to 
you,  to  Ireland.  We  find  contemporaneously  a  German  vessel,  which  has 
taken  every  means  of  disguising  her  German  character,  approaching  the 
shores  of  Ireland  with  considerable  quantities  of  rifles  on  board.  And 
the  association  between  these  various  events  is  apparent  and  needs  no 
labouring. 

I  will  continue  now  the  local  story.  At  about  four  o'clock  on  the 
morning  of  Good  Friday,  on  which  these  men  must  have  landed  at 
Tralee,  a  boat  was  found  a  few  yards  from  the  shore  by  one,  John 
McCarthy,  a  farmer  living  at  Curraghane.  In  the  boat  was  a  dagger, 
and  at  the  same  time  McCarthy  found  in  the  sand  a  tin  box  containing 
pistol  ammunition.  There  were  found  subsequently,  also  buried  in  the 
sand  close  by  or  in  the  neighbourhood,  three  Mauser  pistols,  two  handbags 
containing  pistol  ammunition,  several  maps  of  Ireland  foreign  in  origin, 
a  flash  lamp,  a  large  flag,  two  life-belts,  and  three  coats.  The  number 
of  the  coats  supports  other  evidence  to  the  effect  that  the  party  consisted 
of  three  men.  In  the  pocket  of  one  of  the  coats  there  was  found  a 
railway  ticket  from  Berlin  to  Wilhelmshaven,  dated  12th  April,  1916. 
McCarthy,  struck  in  a  neighbourhood  in  which  unusual  incidents  are  rare 
by  the  discoveries  which  he  had  made,  carried  his  inquiries  a  little  further, 
and  he  then  noticed  the  footprints  of  three  men  leading  from  the  shore 
towards  his  house,  and  continuing  through  his  yard  to  a  stile  leading  in 
the  direction  of  Ardfert. 

At  about  a  quarter-past  five  on  the  same  morning  three  men,  of  whom 
one  has  been  identified  as  the  prisoner,  were  seen  by  Mary  Gorman,  a 
farm  servant,  passing  along  the  road,  also  in  the  direction  of  Ardfert. 
The  police  were  informed,  and  several  officers,  including  Sergeant  Hearne 
and  Constable  Riley,  searched  the  neighbourhood,  and  in  what  is  known 
locally  as  M'Kenna'is  Fort  the  prisoner  was  found  to  be  in  hiding. 
M'Kenna's  Fort  is  called  a  fort;  but  I  am  informed  by  those  who  have 
seen  it  that  it  is  not,  as  one  might  understand  from  the  word  "  fort," 
so  much  an  edifice  above  as  an  excavation  below  the  ground,  affording 
good  cover  for  a  man  who*  wished  to  lie  hid.  The  prisoner  gave  his  name, 
on  being  challenged,  as  Richard  Morton,  of  Denham,  in  Buckingham. 
This  was  the  address  from  which  the  letter  of  gratitude  to  Sir  Edward 
Grey  had  been  written.  He  described  himself  to  the  police  as  an  author. 
He  was  asked  what  he  had  written.  He  replied  he  had  written  "  The 
14 


PreuBisch  Hessische  Staatseisenbahnen. 

Bettkarte       Nr.0113' 

Fri        Berlin  Stadtb.— * 

WilhelmshaTen 


Zug  D  6/D  146/D  112/D  122 

(ab  Friedriebstr.  9^  Nm.) 

in  der  Nacht 


Wagen  Nr. 
Platz  Nr.  ........ 

GHiltig  fur  ................  .  .....................  ...  ........  ....  ......  J 

r.  Klasse.  Preis:  10,00  M 

Yormerkungsgb.    0?50  HI 

Zusammen:   iO,50M 

Nur  gliltig  in  Yerbindtmg  mit  eineia  Fahraasweis 
(. 


The  Railway  Ticket  from  Berlin 
to  Wilhelmshaven. 


i  t 


Opening  Speech  for  Prosecution. 

Attorney-General 

"  Life  of  St.  Brendon."       He  said  lie  had  come  to  Kerry  from  Dublin; 
had  arrived  at  Mount  Brandon  on  the  19th,  had  left  there  on  the  20th, 
had  slept  at  a  farmhouse  close  by,  and  that  he  intended  to  go  to  Tralee. 
All  these  statements  were  false.       He  was  then  taken  to  Ardfert  Barracks. 
On  the  way  to  the  barracks  he  was  seen  by  a  boy  named  Martin 
Collins  to  drop   a  paper   from  his   coat.       The   paper   was   subsequently 
picked  up,   and  it  was  found  to  be  a  code.     It  is  not  necessary  that  I 
should  read  the  whole  of  this  code — it  is  a  lengthy  document  providing 
for  many  contingencies — but  it  is,  I  think,  convenient  that  I  should  call 
attention  to  one  or  two  of  its  terms  which  throw  a  light  on  the  character, 
object,  and  scope  of  the  prisoner's  adventure.     It  contained  such  contem- 
plated messages  as  the  following: — "  Await  further  instructions.     Await 
'  favourable    opportunity.        Send   agent   at  once.        Proposal   accepted. 
1  Proposal  received.     Please  answer  by  cablegram.     Have  decided  to  stay. 
1  Communication    again    possible.     Railway    communications    have    been 
'  stopped.       Our  men  are  at  .       Further  ammunition  is 

'  needed.  Further  rifles  are  needed.  How  many  rifles  will  you  send  us? 
'  How  much  ammunition  will  you  send  us  ?  Will  send  plan  about  land- 
'  ing  on  .  Await  details  about  sending  on 

'  Send    another    ship    to  „        Preparations    are   made    about 

Send  rifles  and  ammunition   to  .     Cannons 

and  plenty  of  ammunition  are  needed.       Send  them  to  .     Send 

more  explosives  to  .       Send  a  vessel  if  possible.'' 

Such,  gentlemen,  were  the  communications  which  it  was  expected 
by  the  prisoner  and  his  German  friends  that  the  adventure  in  which  he 
was  engaged  might  require  to  pass  between  him  and  them.  We  are  now 
in  a  position  to  connect  this  landing  quite  simply,  quite  clearly,  and  quite 
inevitably  with  the  acts  of  seduction  and  the  treasonable  plans  which  were 
outlined  in  Germany.  The  Irish  Brigade  was  to  fight  in  Ireland.  The 
prisoner  attempts  a  landing  with  confederates  and  arms,  and  he  carries 
a  code  which  enables  him  to  ask  for  another  ship,  for  rifles  and  ammuni- 
tion, for  cannon  and  plenty  of  ammunition,  and  for  more  explosives. 

At  Ardfert  Barracks  the  prisoner  was  charged  with  landing  arms 
and  ammunition  in  County  Kerry.  He  replied  by  asking  whether  he 
might  have  legal  assistance.  On  the  22nd  April  he  was  brought  to  Eng- 
land in  custody  and  handed  over  to  Inspector  Sandercock,  of  the  Metro- 
politan Police,  to  whom  he  made  the  statement:  "I  am  Sir  Roger 
"  Casement,  and  the  only  person  to  whom  I  have  disclosed  my  identity 
"  is  a  priest  in  Tralee,  Ireland." 

Such,  gentlemen,  in  a  general  outline,  is  the  case  which  the  Crown 
undertakes!  to  prove  and  upon  which  the  Crown  relies.  I  have,  I  hope, 
outlined  these  facts  without  heat  and  without  feeling.  Neither  in  my 
position  would  be  proper,  and  fortunately  neither  is  required.  Rhetoric 
would  be  misplaced,  for  the  proved  facts  are  more  eloquent  than  words. 
The  prisoner,  blinded  by  a  hatred  to  this  country,  as  malignant  in  quality 
as  it  was  sudden  in  origin,  ha®  played  a  desperate  hazard.  He  has  played 
it  and  he  has  lost  it.  To'-day  the  forfeit  is  claimed. 


15 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Evidence  for  the  Prosecution. 

JOHN  ANTHONY  CECIL  TILLEY,  C.B.,  examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — 
I  am  a  chief  clerk  at  the  Foreign  Office.  I  produce  a  letter,  dated  19th 
June,  1911,  signed  "  Roger  Casement,"  and  addressed  to  Sir  Edward  Grey, 
from  the  Savoy,  Denham,  Bucks.  I  also  produce  from  the  records  of  the 
Foreign  Office  an  official  history  of  Sir  Roger  Casement — exhibit  No.  33. 
That  history  is  correct,  and  it  describes  Sir  Roger  Casement's  career  as  it 
appears  on  the  records  of  the  Foreign  Office.  Sir  Roger  Casement  was 
in  receipt  of  a  pension  which  was  paid  quarterly.  The  last  payment  was 
made  on  30th  September,  1914. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  have  no  questions. 

JOHN  RICHARD  COLE,  examined  by  Mr.  BODKIN — I  am  acting  senior 
examiner  in  H.M.  Paymaster-General's  Office,  Whitehall.  Government 
pensions  are  payable  from  that  office.  Sir  Roger  Casement  was  in 
receipt  of  a  pension  payable  through  that  office.  It  is  the  practice  for 
the  person  in  receipt  of  a  pension  to  make  a  claim  for  the  pension  quarter 
by  quarter,  and  to  sign  a  receipt  on  its  being  paid.  The  amount  of  Sir 
Roger  Casement's  annual  pension  was  £421  13s.  4d.,  payable  quarterly,  less 
income  tax.  I  produce  five  receipts,  each  of  which  purports  to  be  signed 
by  Sir  Roger  Casement,  and  ranging  between  October,  1913,  and  October, 
1914.  The  last  is  dated  7th  October,  1914. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  notice  the  date  is  changed  on 
the  last  receipt.  Did  you  receive  it  in  advance  of  the  date  becoming  due? — 
It  is  claimed  for  the  September  quarter,  and,  of  course,  it  could  not  be 
paid  till  Sir  Roger  claimed  it. 

What  I  am  aiming  at  is  this.  Would  these  receipts  be  sent  out  from 
time  to  time  in  advance  of  their  becoming  due? — They  were  sent  out  in 
blank  except  for  the  amount  in  figures. 

The  date? — There  is  no  date  on  them. 

I  take  it  you  did  not  receive  it  yourself  ? — No,  the  bank  gets  the  money. 

When  did  this  first  come  into  your  possession? — In  October,  the  last 
voucher. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Let  us  understand  what  happens.  There 
are  forms  which  are  sent  out  without  date? — Quite  so. 

Then  the  recipient  of  the  pension  fills  in  the  date  and  pays  it  into  his 
bank? — Quite  so. 

The  bank  pays  it  and  it  comes  to  you? — Yes. 

And  you  get  the  receipt  with  the  date? — Yes,  and  we  keep  it. 

JOHN  CRONIN,  examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I  live  at  2  Carroll's 
Place,  John  Street,  Cork.  When  the  war  broke  out  I  was  a  private  in 
the  2nd  Battalion  of  the  Royal  Munster  Fusiliers.  I  was  sent  to  France, 
and  I  landed  in  that  country  on  13th  August,  1914.  On  27th  August  I 
was  wounded  and  made  prisoner  at  a  place  called  Etreux.  I  remained 
there  for  a  time,  and  then  I  was  sent  to  Sennelager  Camp  in  Germany. 
From  there  I  was  sent  to  Wesel  Hospital,  where  I  remained  till  7th 
December,  1914,  and  then  I  went  to  the  Munster  Prison  Camp,  where  there 
16 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  Cronin 

were  about  twenty-one  Irish  prisoners.  The  Irish  prisoners  were  in  a 
separate  room  from  the  other  British  prisoners.  I  was  moved  on  22nd 
December,  1914,  from  that  camp  to  Limburg.  The  twenty-one  Irish 
prisoners  who  were  with  me  at  the  Munster  Camp  were  also  removed  to 
the  Limburg  Camp.  There  were  over  2000  other  prisoners  at  Limburg 
when  I  got  there — I  think  the  total  number  was  about  2400.  They  were 
all  supposed  to  be  Irish,  and,  judging  from  those  I  spoke  to,  they  were 
Irish.  I  spoke  to  nearly  every  man  in  the  camp. 

Did  you  see  anybody  there  besides  the  prisoners  and  the  Germans 
who  were  in  charge? — I  did. 

Whom  did  you  see  ? — The  prisoner  in  the  dock,  whom  I  now  recognise. 
I  first  saw  him  in  the  camp  about  a  week  after  I  got  there.  He  was 
dressed  in  civilian  clothes,  and  was  going  round  the  camp  with  papers. 
One  of  the  papers  was  called  The  Gaelic  American,  and  another  was  called 
The  Continental  Times. 

Did  he  go  where  he  liked,  or  was  he  under  restraint? — He  could  go 
where  he  liked. 

Did  he  seem  to  be  in  charge  of  any  one  ? — No,  he  had  the  full  privilege 
to  go  where  he  liked.  That  day  when  I  first  saw  him  I  heard  him  speak  to 
seventy  or  eighty  of  us  in  a  crowd.  He  came  up  to  us  and  addressed  us, 
and  introduced  himself  to  us. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — He  said  that  he  was  going  to  form  an 
Irish  Brigade,  and  he  said,  "  Why  live  any  longer  in  hunger  and  misery  in 
"  this  camp  when  you  can  better  yourselves  by  joining  the  Irish  Brigade 
' '  which  I  am  going  to  form ;  you  will  be  sent  to  Berlin  as  the  guests  of  the 

§"  German  Government." 
Examination  continued — Did  he  say  what  this  Irish  Brigade  was  to 
do? — He  said  in  the  event  of  Germany  winning  a  sea  battle  he  would  land 
them  in  Ireland,  and  Ireland  would  equip  them. 

What  were  they  to  do  in  Ireland? — Free  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  who  they  were  to  fight  against? — Against  England. 

Did  he  say  what  would  happen  to  them  if  Germany  did  not  win  1 — They 
would  be  sent  to  America;  they  would  get  £10  or  £20  pocket  money  and 
a  free  passage.  I  have  told  the  jury  now  what  I  remember  of  the  speech 
he  made  on  the  first  occasion  when  I  saw  him.  He  was  asked  who  he  was, 
and  he  said  that  he  was  Sir  Roger  Casement,  the  organiser  of  the  Irish 
National  Volunteer  movement.  I  saw  him  at  the  camp  on  several  occa- 
sions after,  but  I  did  not  go  near  him,  and  I  therefore  did  not  hear  again 
what  he  said.  When  I  knew  what  he  was  about  I  avoided  him. 

You  talked  about  Sir  Roger  Casement  having  those  papers  with  him. 
Did  any  one  give  you  these  papers? — The  German  authorities  sent  them 
into  the  rooms — that  is,  The  Continental  Times  and  The  Gaelic  American, 
and  also  a  little  book,  "  Crimes  Against  Ireland,"  written  by  Casement.  I 
read  this  literature,  but  I  did  not  bring  away  any  of  these  papers  or  the 
book  with  me  as  we  were  not  allowed.  We  were  searched  when  we  left. 

What  was  the  book  about? — (Question  objected  to.  Objection  sus- 
tained.) 

Shown  exhibit  4,  being  address  headed  "  Irishmen  " — I  saw  a  paper 
like  that  in  Limburg  Camp.     This  document  was  sent  down  to  us  from  those 
people  who  joined  the  Irish  Brigade.       There  were  four  of  them  posted 
c  17 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


John  Cronin 


up  in  our  barrack-room  for  the  information  of  those  desiring  to  join  the 
brigade. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Did  you  ever  see  Casement  in  your 
barrack-room  after  these  were  posted  up? — No,  I  saw  him  in  the  camp 
after  they  were  posted  up,  but  not  in  the  barrack-room. 

Examination  continued — I  saw  them  posted  up  after  Casement  had 
been  in  the  camp.  He  came  again  to  the  camp  after  they  were  posted 
up.  When  I  was  at  Limburg,  52  out  of  the  2400  prisoners  joined  the 
Irish  Brigade.  The  first  to  join  was  Quinless,  who  was  a  corporal  in  the 
Royal  Irish  Regiment.  Others  who  joined  were  Keogh,  O'Toole,  Bailey, 
O'Callaghan,  and  Cavanagh. 

Look  at  exhibit  5.  Did  you  see  that  photograph,  which  is  handed  up, 
in  The  Gaelic  American,  the  paper  you  have  mentioned? — Yes.  I  saw  a 
copy  of  the  paper  in  the  camp  in  July,  1915.  I  recognise  some  of  the 
men  who  appear  in  that  photograph. 

[This  photograph  was  on  a  leaflet  and  not  in  The  Gaelic  American 
itself,  and  Mr.  Sullivan  objected  that  the  leaflet  was  not  admissible;  it 
was  not  shown  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  prisoner,  and  not  being 
admissible,  a  description  of  it  could  not  be  asked  of  the  witness.  The 
Court  ruled  that  the  question  could  be  put,  as  the  picture  presented  the  game 
picture  which  the  witness  had  described  as  being  in  The  Gaelic  American.] 

The  man  on  the  right  I  recognise  as  Quinless,  of  the  llth  Royal 
Irish  Regiment;  next  to  him,  Cavanagh,  of  the  South  Irish  Horse; 
next  to  him  O'Callaghan,  of  the  Munster  Fusiliers;  in  the  middle,  Bailey, 
of  the  Royal  Irish  Rifles;  the  tall  man  next  to  him  I  do  not 
know  by  name;  then  there  is  Keogh,  of  the  Connaught  Rangers.  The 
little  man  on  the  left  is  a  German  in  the  Irish  Brigade  uniform.  That 
uniform  was  silver  grey.  There  were  some  that  had  a  green  shade. 
Quinless  and  Keogh  had  a  different  uniform  to  the  remainder ; 
they  had  a  brighter  grey.  They  held  the  rank  of  feldwebel  in  the  Irish 
Brigade — that  is  the  German  for  sergeant.  There  was  a  green  shamrock 
on  the  cuff,  and  a  green  collar,  and  then  on  the  cap  there  were  a  •shamrock 
and  a  button.  When  we  first  went  to  Limburg  we  were  fairly  well  treated 
as  regards  our  food.  After  Casement  had  spoken  to  me  at  the  camp 
I  found  a  difference  in  my  treatment.  They  reduced  us  from  750  grammes 
to  300  grammes  of  bread,  and  mangolds  were  substituted  for  potatoes. 
I  do  not  know  what  happened  to  the  men  who  joined  the  Irish  Brigade. 

They  were  sent  up  to  a  camp  near  Berlin,  and  I  had  nothing  to  do  with 
them.  I  was  exchanged  and  sent  back  to  this  country  from  Limburg 
Camp  on  2nd  February,  1916. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Where  were  you  when  war  broke 
out? — At  home. 

Were  you  a  reservist? — Yes. 

You  were  in  civil  employment  at  the  time? — Yes. 

I  suppose  you  had  been  living  in  Cork  for  some  years? — The  latter  part. 

Immediately  before  you  rejoined  the  colours  you  had  been  there  for 
some  years? — Six  years  and  a  half. 

You  told  us,  I  think,  that  you  had  once  seen  Sir  Roger  Casement 
before? — Yes. 

That  was  in  Cork?— Yea. 
18 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  Cronin 

In  connection  with  the  Irish  Volunteer  movement,  was  it  not? — Yes. 

That  was  a  considerable  time  before  the  war,  eight  or  nine  months? — 
Just  about  that  time. 

Can  you  fix  a  date  yourself? — I  could  not  fix  the  date. 

Can  you  fix  even  the  period  of  the  year  at  which  you  saw  him  there? — 
I  could  not  say.  I  know  it  was  1913. 

He  was  at  that  time  organising  the  Irish  Volunteers? — Yes. 

In  Ireland? — I  could  not  be  sure  whether  it  was  him  or  not.  There 
was  a  hostile  demonstration  there. 

You  told  us  that  you  had  seen,  or  that  you  thought  you  had  seen,  Sir 
Roger  Casement  before.  Assuming  you  were  right  in  your  impression  that 
it  was  Sir  Roger  Casement  you  had  seen,  was  that  nine  months  before  the 
war? — Something  like  that. 

It  was  in  the  year  1913? — Yes. 

Assuming  it  was  Sir  Roger  Casement,  was  he  at  the  time  engaged  in 
recruiting  for  the  Irish  Volunteers? — Addressing  the  meeting. 

Was  he  at  a  public  meeting  ? — It  was  a  public  meeting ;  it  was  in  the 
City  Hall. 

You  went  there  yourself? — I  did. 

Being  in  the  City  Hall  at  the  meeting  you  attended  yourself,  did  you 
know  that  the  meeting  was  summoned  for  the  purpose  of  organising  the 
Irish  Volunteers? — Yes. 

For  the  purpose  of  recruiting  for  them  ? — Yes. 

And  to  get  money  to  supply  them  with  arms? — I  could  not  tell  you 
anything  about  that. 

Was  there  not  a  little  jingle  of  money  about  the  project? — No. 

Was  not  that  one  of  the  objects  of  the  meeting,  to  raise  funds? — I  do 
not  know. 

As  well  as  raising  recruits? — I  do  not  know  what  the  object  of  the 
meeting  was. 

You  attended  it  yourself? — Yes. 

And  you  tell  me  that  at  the  City  Hall,  although  you  attended  the 
meeting  yourself,  you  are  unable  to  say  what  was  the  object  of  the  meeting 
at  which  you  were  present? — The  object  of  the  meeting  was  about  the 
Volunteers. 

You  told  me  that  they  were  appealing  for  recruits? — That  was  their 
object,  I  suppo'se. 

I  want  to  know  in  addition  to  that,  were  they  appealing  for  the 
means  of  getting  arms  for  their  recruits? — I  could  not  tell  you. 

This  was  in  1913.       Had  you  been  present  at  any  other  meeting? — No. 

I  think  you  said  something  about  there  being  a  hostile  demonstration 
at  this  meeting? — Yes. 

Was  the  hostile  demonstration  caused  by  some  expression  of  approval 
with  regard  to  the  Ulster  Volunteers? — Yes. 

The  meeting  being  hostile  to  the  "Ulster  Volunteers? — I  do  not  know- 
about  that.  It  was  broken  up  then  as  far  as  I  know. 

You  were  present  at  the  meeting  that  was  broken  up,  and  you  told 
me  the  disturbance  was  caused  by  the  fact  that  some  person  made  some 
approving  allusion  to  the  Ulster  Volunteers.  Was  it  after  that  that  the 
meeting  was  broken  up? — Yes. 

19 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

John  Cronin 

Was  it  in  consequence  of  that,  as  far  as  you  could  see,  that  the  meeting 
was  broken  up? — I  could  not  tell  you. 

At  all  events,  in  the  City  of  Cork  there  was  a  feeling  of  very  strong 
hostility  to  the  Ulster  Volunteers.  Is  not  that  so? — I  do  not  know. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  is  quite  possible,  I  suppose,  it  was 
broken  up  in  consequence  of  that? — I  suppose  so. 

By  Mr.  SULLIVAN — You  rejoined  the  colours  and  you  went  out  to 
France? — Yes. 

And  we  have  you  at  Limburg.  You  recognise  Sir  Koger  Casement 
as  being  the  person  who  addressed  you  at  Limburg? — I  partly  knew  him 
when  I  saw  him. 

You  partly  knew  him  from  this  interesting  episode  in  Cork? — I  would 
not  be  sure,  but  I  thought  I  had  seen  him  before. 

At  this  meeting  in  Cork  ? — I  do  not  know  properly  where  I  had  seen  him. 

You  do  not  like  to  commit  yourself  to  that.  What  I  want  to  get  at  is, 
have  you  a  clear  recollection  of  what  he  said  to  you  when  he  saw  you  in 
Limburg  ? — Yes. 

I  suppose  you  cannot  recollect  everything  he  said? — I  could  not.  I 
have  not  the  brains  of  a.  solicitor. 

Did  he  speak  of  raising  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Limburg  in  connection 
with  the  Irish  Volunteers  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  that  they  would  fight  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

That  they  were  to  fight  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

And  for  Ireland? — Yes. 

And  for  nobody  else? — For  nobody  else,  only  for  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  they  were  to  be  landed  in  Ireland  after  the  war  was  over  ? — 
No,  in  the  event  of  Germany  winning  a  sea  battle. 

In  the  event  of  Germany  winning  a  sea  battle,  they  might  be  landed 
before  the  war  was  over? — The  war  could  not  be  over  till  the  sea  battle 
was  won. 

That  is  a  still  more  remote  date  than  the  one  I  suggested  to  you.  I 
want  to  know,  did  not  he  speak  of  Germany  having  won  the  war  before  the 
brigade  was  to  move  to  Ireland? — No. 

He  did  not  speak  of  Germany  winning  the  war  before  the  brigade  was 
to  move  to  Ireland? — No. 

But  the  seas  were  to  be  clear  before  the  brigade  was  to  go  to  Ireland  ? — 
Yes. 

Did  he  state  that  the  brigade  was  to  be  financed,  the  money  provided 
for  it,  by  Irishmen  in  Ireland  and  in  America.  Do  you  remember  his 
saying  that? — No. 

But  he  told  you  that  if  Germany  failed  to  win  the  war  the  members  of 
the  brigade  would  be  sent  to  America? — Yes. 

Instead  of  to  Ireland? — Yes. 

Were  you  in  any  way  connected  with  any  of  the  Volunteer  movements 
in  Ireland? — No. 

Before  you  left  Cork,  in  fact,  was  there  a  Volunteer  force,  an  armed 
force,  in  the  city? — There  was  a  Volunteer  force,  but  they  were  not  armed. 

Had  they  any  arms? — I  never  saw  them  going  out. 

Was  this   a  volunteer  force  organised  in  antagonism  to  the  Ulster 
Volunteer  force? — I  do  not  know. 
20 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  Cronin 

You  do  not  know? — No. 

Did  it,  at  all  events,  purport  to  be?  Did  the  people  connected  with 
it  purport  to  be  in  opposition  to  the  Ulster  Volunteer  force? — I  was  not 
interested  in  it. 

You  did  go  to  the  meeting? — Yes,  for  curiosity. 

At  their  meeting,  at  all  events,  was  it  not  perfectly  clear  that  the 
population  were  organising  against  the  Ulster  Volunteers? — I  did  not  hear 
it  mentioned. 

Reference  to  the  Ulster  Volunteers  created  an  uproar? — It  created  an 
uproar  when  they  said,  "  Three  cheers  for  Sir  Edward  Carson." 

And  then ? — The  meeting  ended. 

There  was  an  uproar? — Yes. 

The  meeting  did  not  seem  to  be  in  favour  of  Sir  Edward  Carson? — I 
do  not  think  so. 

How  long  did  you  remain  in  Limburg  Camp? — From  23rd  December, 
1914,  till  2nd  February,  1916. 

You  were  discharged  from  Limburg? — Yes,  on  the  2nd  February  this 
year. 

You  were  there  all  the  time.  What  was  the  latest  date  at  which  you 
saw  Sir  Roger  Casement  there?  Can  you  fix  the  date? — About  the  middle 
of  February. 

Which  year?— 1915. 

The  speech  that  he  made  to  you,  the  speech  that  you  listened  to,  must 
have  been  some  time  about  the  beginning  of  January,  I  gather? — Yes. 

His  visits  to  the  camp  were  between  the  beginning  of  January  and  the 
middle  of  February? — Yes. 

Can  you  say  how  often  he  was  there,  to  the  best  of  your  recollection? — 
I  saw  him  on  five  or  six  occasions  myself. 

Five  or  six  occasions  within  that  six  weeks? — Yes. 

When  was  the  food  ration  reduced  in  Limburg  ? — The  end  of  February, 
1915. 

Was  there  any  change  in  the  food  ration  later? — Yes. 

When  was  the  next  alteration  in  food  ration  ? — Somewhere  about  April. 

Was  there  any  further  alteration  before  you  left? — No,  no  more 
after  that. 

The  ration  you  gave  in  your  direct  examination,  was  that  the  last 
ration  you  were  receiving,  300  grammes  of  bread  and  mangolds? — Yes. 

That  wa,s  the  last  ration  you  were  receiving? — Yes. 

That  represent®  the  final  amount  to  which  you  were  reduced  at  the 
April  reduction? — Yes. 

Could  you  tell  me  what  was  the  reduction  at  the  end  of  February?  It 
was  reduced  from  750  grammes  to  300  grammes  of  bread  at  the  end  of 
February. 

Then  what  was  the  reduction  of  the  ration  that  took  place  in  April? — 
The  reduction  of  rations  which  took  place  in  April  was  they  gave  me  no 
potatoes,  only  mangolds. 

The  potatoes  were  cut  off  in  April? — Yes. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Do  you  mean  it  was  in  April  that  you  got 
the  mangolds  instead  of  potatoes? — Yes. 

21 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


John  Cronin 


By  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Was  the  reduction  in  rations  universal  through  the 
whole  camp? — To  the  British  prisoners'  camp? 

Yes.  Did  the  reduction  of  rations  apply  to  every  one  who  was  left 
in  the  camp? — Yes,  to  everybody  who  was  left,  of  British  prisoners,  but 
there  were  Russians  and  French. 

There  may  be  a  difference;  are  you  not  an  Irishman? — There  were 
Russians  and  French  there  as  well. 

At  all  events,  the  rations  were  universal? — To  the  British,  but  the 
French  rations  were  not  reduced. 

And  the  Russians  ? — I  do  not  know  Russian.      I  could  not  speak  to  them. 

You  had  refused  to  join  this  Irish  Brigade? — Certainly. 

At  the  outset,   in  January? — Yes. 

There  was  no  doubt  or  question  about  that? — No,  but  I  was  marched 
up  to  the  French  lines  every  fortnight  to  know  whether  I  would  join. 

It  was  clear  from  the  start  that  you  were  not  going  to  join? — Quite 
dear. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  HOEBIDGE — I  understood  you  to  say  they  kept  on 
trying  at  you,  and  marched  you  up  to  the  French  lines  every  fortnight? — 
Yes,  till  the  day  I  left. 

By  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Up  to  the  day  you  left,  in  February,  1916? — Yes. 

Did  the  men  who  did  join  leave  that  camp  and  go  away? — They  did, 
and  they  came  back  in  uniform. 

And  went  away  again,  I  suppose? — They  were  there  now  and  then  in 
the  camp. 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — When  you  say  you  were 
marched  to  the  French  lines  every  fortnight  to  try  to  get  you  to  join, 
who  gave  you  the  orders? — The  gentleman  and  interpreter  in  charge  of 
the  three  companies.  There  were  three  companies,  and  we  were  marched 
up,  thirty  at  a  time,  in  charge  of  those  who  joined  the  Irish  Brigade, 
and  a  German  officer. 

When  you  were  marched  to  the  French  lines,  who  asked  you  this 
question? — Quinless  and  Keogh. 

And  that,  you  say,  lasted  as  long  as  you  were  there? — Yes,  till  I  came 
home. 

DAMBL  O'BRIEN,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I  was 
formerly  a  private  in  the  Leinster  regiment.  I  joined  that  regiment  in 
1912,  and  about  a  month  afterwards  I  was  transferred  to  the  19th  Hussars. 
I  went  with  that  regiment  to  France.  I  was  wounded  in  the  retreat  from 
Mons,  and  I  was  taken  prisoner  while  I  was  in  hospital.  I  was  first  taken 
to  a  place  called  Doberitz,  where  there  were  about  a  couple  of  hundred 
prisoners  from  Irish  regiments.  From  there  I  went  to  Limburg  along 
with  the  other  Irish  prisoners  that  I  have  mentioned.  We  arrived  at 
Limburg  about  15th  December,  1914.  When  we  got  there  there  were 
only  about  50  other  men  in  the  camp,  but  afterwards  there  were  about 
2500  Irish  prisoners  of  war. 

Besides  the  prisoners  of  war,  do  you  remember  any  one  else  coming 
there,  anybody  who  made  a  speech? — Yes. 

Who? — Casement.  I  recognise  the  prisoner  as  Casement.  He  spoke 
to  all  the  men.  I  heard  him  make  a  speech  for  the  first  time  about 
22 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Daniel  O'Brien 

19th  February,  1915.  I  heard  him  say,  "  Now  is  the  time  for  Irish- 
"  men  to  fight  against  England;  now  is  their  opportunity  for  doing  so; 
"  join  the  Irish  Brigade."  He  said  he  came  to  form  an  Irish  Brigade, 
and  he  wanted  all  Irishmen  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade  and  become  guests 
of  the  German  Army.  He  said  that  if  they  were  successful  in  winning 
the  war  they  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade  along  with  the  German  Army 
in  Ireland,  and  they  would  fight  against  England  there.  If  Germany  did 
not  win  the  war,  then  they  would  be  sent  by  the  German  Government  to 
America  with  a  guarantee  of  £5  and  a  situation.  I  do  not  remember 
anything  else  that  he  said.  He  said  a  lot — I  cannot  remember  all  of  it — 
but  what  I  have  told  is  the  substance  of  it. 

How  did  the  men  who  were  listening  behave? — They  behaved  all  right 
till  they  began  to  find  him  out.  They  behaved  all  right  for  a  quarter 
of  an  hour,  and  then  they  found  out  who  he  was,  and  they  hissed  him  and 
booed  him  out  of  the  camp.  I  saw  one  of  the  Munster  Fusiliers  actually 
push  him.  That  Munster  Fusilier  got  shifted  out  of  the  camp. 

Did  you  join  the  Irish  Brigade? — No;  if  I  did  I  would  not  be  here 
to-day. 

Did  anything  happen  to  the  men  who  refused  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade? 
— Yes,  we  got  punished;  we  got  our  rations  cut  down.  I  heard  Sir  Roger 
Casement  speak  only  once,  but  I  saw  him  in  the  camp  several  times.  The 
time  when  he  made  the  speech  that  I  heard  was  the  first  time  that  I  saw  him. 
I  saw  him  in  the  camp  about  twice  after  that.  He  was  walking  about  on 
those  occasions.  I  know  about  a  dozen  who  joined  the  Irish  Brigade; 
there  were  fifty-two  all  told  who  joined  the  Irish  Brigade.  The  names  of 
some  who  joined  were  Quinless,  Royal  Irish  Regiment;  Keogh,  Royal  Irish 
Regiment;  O'Callaghan,  Connaught  Rangers;  Bailey,  Royal  Irish  Rifles; 
Cavanagh,  Royal  Irish  Horse;  O'Toole,  Irish  Guards.  Shown  exhibit 
No.  5 — I  recognise  in  that  picture  Quinless  on  the  right ;  then  next  to  him 
Cavanagh;  then  a  man  whose  name  I  do  not  know;  then  Bailey,  O'Toole, 
and  Keogh.  I  believe  that  the  man  at  the  end  is  an  interpreter.  I 
saw  the  men  wearing  the  uniform  in  which  they  appear  in  the  picture. 
The  men  who  joined  the  Irish  Brigade  were  sent  away  to  Berlin. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  they  were  sent  away  is  all  that  the 
witness  can  say. 

Examination  continued — When  they  came  back  in  the  uniform  did  they 
stay  with  you  and  the  other  prisoners? — No;  they  were  kept  separate  by 
themselves.  Shown  exhibit  No.  4,  address  headed  "  Irishmen  " — I  saw 
a  document  like  that  in  the  barrack-room  while  I  was  in  camp  at  Lim- 
burg.  I  first  noticed  it  after  Casement  came  and  visited  us.  I  read  it. 

Whereabout  in  the  barrack-room  was  it?— They  were  sent  round  to 
each  barrack -room,  brought  round  by  a  German  soldier  to  each  barrack- 
room.  I  left  Limburg  in  February  of  this  year ;  I  came  over  here  as  an 
exchanged  prisoner  of  war. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Can  you  tell  me  how  long  after 
you  arrived  in  Limburg  that  the  speech  of  Sir  Roger  Casement  took  place? 
— About  two  months. 

Were  you  moving  about  the  Irish  camp? — Yes. 

Did  not  you  hear  any  other  speech  but  one? — That  is  all. 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Daniel  O'Brien 


Did  you  see  him  speaking  in  the  camp  prior  to  that? — Yes. 

How  often? — I  saw  him  once  speaking,  but  I  saw  him  in  the  camp 
afterwards. 

Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  besides  this  speech  you  have  reported 
to  us  you  saw  him  delivering  another  speech? — No,  I  saw  him  in  the 
camp.  I  did  not  pay  any  attention  to  him. 

You  yourself  never  saw  him  delivering  any  speech  except  the  one 
you  listened  to? — That  is  all  I  saw. 

I  suppose  you  cannot  recollect  everything  he  said? — No. 

Did  he  first  of  all  speak  about  the  Irish  Volunteer  movement? — No; 
he  spoke  about  the  Irish  Brigade. 

Did  not  he  mention  the  Irish  Volunteers? — He  might  have  done.  I 
did  not  hear  him.  I  was  not  there  at  the  beginning  of  it. 

Did  you  only  listen  to  a  small  part  of  his  speech? — That  is  all,  and 
went  away. 

You  only  heard  a  small  part  of  his  speech? — Yes. 

But  in  what  you  did  hear  did  he  speak  of  the  Irish  Brigade  fighting 
in  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  the  Irish  Brigade  would  be  used  in  Ireland  only? — In 
Ireland. 

Did  he  say  they  were  to  be  transferred  to  Ireland  when  Germany 
had  won  the  war? — Yes. 

And  if  Germany  failed  to  win  the  war  they  should  go  to  America? — To 
America,  yes. 

Arrangements  would  be  made  to  have  them  go  to  America.  Did  you 
speak  to  Sir  Roger  Casement  at  all  yourself? — No. 

You  did  not  say  anything  to  him? — No. 

You  simply  remained  in  the  camp,  I  gather,  and  said  nothing  and 
did  nothing? — No,  because  I  could  not  do. 

When  were  your  rations  reduced? — Just  after  Casement  went  away. 

Was  that  the  end  of  February? — About  a  week  afterwards. 

Was  it  about  the  end  of  February? — It  was  getting  on  close  to  the 
end  of  February. 

Have  you  not  been  speaking  about  the  19th  February? — Yes,  the 
19th  February. 

How  do  you  fix  the  date  of  the  19th  February? — Because  I  have  good 
reason  to. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  are  asked  how  you  fix  it? — Because 
my  rations  were  cut  down  about  a  week  afterwards.  I  shall  never  forget  it. 

By  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Your  rations  were  cut  down  at  the  end  of 
February? — Yes,  about  the  end  of  February. 

And  you  fix  the  19th  by  reference  to  the  date  of  the  cutting  down 
of  your  rations,  which  was  at  the  end  of  February? — Yes. 

That  is  why  you  say  it  was  the  19th  when  you  heard  the  speech. 
Were  the  rations  cut  down  for  every  man  in  the  camp? — Every  man. 

And  was  recruiting  going  on  after  Sir  Roger  Casement  left? — Yes. 

The  recruiting  for  the  Irish  Brigade  went  on  as  usual? — Yes. 

Although  the  rations  had  been  cut  down? — Yes. 

For  everybody? — For  everybody. 
24 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Daniel  O'Brien 

In  April  was  there  a  fresh  cutting  down  of  rations?  Were  the  rations 
out  down  further  in  April? — Yes. 

What  reduction  of  rations  was  made  at  the  end  of  February? — I  could 
not  exactly  tell  you,  but  it  was  very  small. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — What  was  it  you  say  was  very  small? — 
The  amount  of  bread.  That  is  what  we  were  living  on,  a  piece  of  bread, 
and  what  we  were  getting. 

By  Mr.  SULLIVAN — And  in  April  was  your  ration  further  reduced  by  sub- 
stituting mangolds  for  potatoes? — Yes1. 

Was  that  universal  in  the  camp? — Yes. 

Did  recruiting  for  the  Irish  Brigade  still  go  on? — Yes. 

I  think  you  mentioned  in  your  evidence  about  52  men? — About  52 
men  joined  the  Irish  Brigade. 

Is  that  in  the  whole  period  of  recruiting? — Yes. 

Up  to  the  time  you  left  Limburg  Camp  ? — Yes. 

Re-examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — To  take  you  back  for  a 
moment  to  the  speech  you  heard  Sir  Roger  Casement  make,  he  said  the 
Irish  Brigade  were  to  fight  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  who  were  to  take  them  to  Ireland  to  fight? — The  German 
Army. 

Did  he  say  against  whom  they  were  to  fight? — To  fight  against 
England. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — There  is  one  question  I  want  to  put. 
You  told  us  there  were  some  2500  altogether  in  the  Limburg  Camp? — Yes, 
my  lord. 

Were  any  steps  taken  to  find  out  whether  the  2500  were  Irish? — They 
were  supposed  to  be  Irish. 

Why? — It  was  supposed  to  be  an  Irish  camp.  They  all  came  as 
Irishmen  to  this  camp. 

Before  they  were  removed  to  the  camp  was  there  anything  done  to 
find  out  whether  they  were  Irish? — Yes. 

What? — You  had  to  put  your  name  down,  and  where  you  were  born, 
and  your  religion. 

Were  there  any  but  Irish  regiments  there? — Yes,  mixed — English, 
Scotch,  and  Irish. 

At  Limburg? — Oh,  no,  at  the  various  camps  before  we  went  to  Limburg. 

There  were  English,  Scotch,  and  Irish  at  the  various  camps.  When 
you  went  to  Limburg  what  regiments  were  there? — They  were  all  mixed — 
English,  Irish,  and  Scotch — but  they  were  all  supposed  to  be  Irish. 

They  were  mixed  regiments,  not  only  Irish  regiments? — All  regiments. 

You  say  they  were  all  supposed  to  be  Irish.  What  do  you  mean  by 
that? — It  was  supposed  to  be  Irishmen  who  went  to  Limburg  Camp.  It 
was  supposed  to  be  a  special  camp  just  for  Irishmen  alone. 

JOHN  ROBINSON,  examined  by  Mr.  BRANSON — I  live  at  45  Ross  Street, 
Bristol.  I  was  a  corporal  in  the  Royal  Army  Medical  Corps.  I  joined 
the  Army  in  June,  1906.  At  the  outbreak  of  war  I  was  stationed  at 
Dublin.  I  went  to  France  on  19th  August,  1914,  attached  to  the  13th 
Field  Ambulance,  and  on  24th  August,  1914,  I  was  taken  prisoner  at 
Thulin.  I  was  wounded  in  the  head,  and  also  in  the  knee  and  in  the  shoulder. 

25 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

John  Robinson 

I  was  taken  to  hospital  at  Recklinghausen,  in  Germany,  and  from  there 
I  went  to  the  prisoner-of-war  camp  at  Sennelager.  There  were  other 
Irish  prisoners  there.  No  difference  was  made  at  the  start  between  the 
British  prisoners  who  were  Irishmen  and  the  British  prisoners  who  were 
not,  but  a  difference  was  made  about  three  months  afterwards,  when  the 
Irish  Brigade  was  formed.  The  Irish  prisoners  were  all  taken  away  and 
put  in  a  hut  by  themselves.  We  Irish  prisoners  only  had  camp  work  to 
do,  while  the  rest  had  to  work  and  carry  and  saw  wood.  I  left  Sennelager 
Camp  with  the  rest  of  the  Irish  prisoners — some  200  or  300 — on  23rd 
December,  and  went  to  Limburg.  The  prisoners  at  Limburg  were  all 
supposed  to  be  Irish  prisoners.  I  remember  Sir  Roger  Casement  coming 
there  after  I  had  been  there  a  little  while.  I  recognise  him  as  the 
prisoner.  I  saw  him  in  the  camp. 

What  was  he  doing  there? — He  was  speaking  with  the  Irish  Brigade. 

Speaking  about ? — The  Irish  Brigade.        I   did  not  catch  all  he 

said,  but  I  remember  him  saying,  "  Now  is  your  chance  to  fight  for  Ireland 
"  and  free  it.  I  am  very  glad  to  see  you  here.  This  is  the  only  chance 
"you  will  have  to  fight  for  Ireland.  Why  do  you  not  join  the  Irish 
"  Brigade?  "  Then  he  spoke  about  the  treatment  of  Ireland  in  England. 
That  is  all  I  remember. 

What  was  the  Irish  Brigade  to  do? — They  were  supposed  to  land  in 
Ireland  and  free  Ireland. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Tell  us  what  you  heard  him  say — not 
what  they  were  supposed  to  do? — That  is  about  all  I  can  remember  at  the 
present  time.  He  said  he  was  very  glad  to  see  so  many  Irishmen  here, 
that  now  was  our  time  to  fight  for  Ireland  and  strike  a  blow,  and  he  hoped 
we  would  all  join  the  Irish  Brigade. 

Examination  continued — Did  he  say  with  whom  the  Irish  Brigade  were 
going  to  fight? — Fight  against  England.  He  said  that  if  Germany  had  a 
victory  on  the  sea  they  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Ireland,  but  if 
Germany  did  not  win  at  sea  then  we  were  all  to  go  to  America.  At  the 
start  there  was  no  money  mentioned,  but  at  the  end  of  the  speech  he  said 
that  we  would  all  get  £10  in  money  and  be  sent  off  to  America.  He  did 
not  say  who  was  to  give  us  the  £10. 

How  many  people  were  listening  to  this? — There  were  generally  about 
forty  or  fifty,  sometimes  thirty.  I  heard  him  make  speeches  on  four 
different  occasions.  About  a  week  or  so  would  elapse  between  the  different 
occasions. 

What  sort  of  reception  did  he  get  from  those  who  were  listening? — 
Very  poor ;  he  did  not  get  a  good  reception.  On  one  occasion  he  was 
struck,  and  on  another  occasion  I  eaw  him  get  pushed.  When  he  was 
struck  he  swung  his  umbrella  round  to  keep  the  prisoners  off  him,  and 
when  he  was  pushed  he  walked  out  of  the  camp.  There  was  no  one  with 
him  at  that  time.  A  couple  of  German  sentries  came  on  the  scene  the 
second  time  I  saw  Casement  there,  and  he  went  out  of  the  camp  with  them. 
On  that  occasion  the  crowd  that  was  round  was  getting  a  bit  excited,  and 
they  did  not  want  to  listen  to  him.  Shown  exhibit  No.  4,  address  headed 
"  Irishmen  " — I  saw  that  in  the  Limburg  Camp.  It  was  a  form  very 
much  like  this ;  the  same  size,  only  what  I  saw  was  typewritten.  It  was 
in  the  centre  of  the  camp  when  I  saw  it.  A  fellow  had  it  in  his  hand, 
26 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  Robinson 

and  there  was  a  crowd  round  reading  it.       There  was  a  kind  of  buff  form 
handed  round  with  questions  on. 

Who  gave  you  these  forms? — The  Germans.  I  got  one,  and  I  filled  up 
the  answers  to  the  questions.  Every  man  had  to  fill  up  the  document 
and  hand  it  back  to  the  Germans.  I  handed  my  document  back,  and 
I  have  not  seen  it  since.  I  stayed  at  Limburg  for  five  months,  and  I  was 
shifted  from  there  to  Giessen.  I  did  not  join  the  Irish  Brigade.  There 
were  about  150  other  prisoners  taken  to  Giessen.  None  of  them  had 
agreed  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade.  As  far  as  I  can  remember,  between 
fifty  and  sixty  at  Limburg  joined  the  Irish  Brigade.  I  did  not  see  any 
of  those  persons  at  Giessen.  I  remember  the  names  of  one  or  two  of  the 
prisoners  who  joined  the  Irish  Brigade — Bailey,  Keogh,  Quinless,  and 
O'Toole.  I  saw  some  of  the  persons  who  joined  the  Irish  Brigade  in 
uniform — a  green  uniform  with  a  little  harp  on  the  collar  and  a  harp  on 
the  cap.  I  had  never  seen  the  uniform  before.  On  8th  October  I  was 
exchanged  and  came  back  to  this  country. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — How  long  was  Sir  Roger  Casement 
speaking  on  the  occasions  that  you  have  detailed  to  us,  the  first  time  you 
heard  him  speak,  for  instance? — About  a  quarter  of  an  hour  to  twenty 
minutes. 

Can  you  remember  all  he  said? — No. 

Or  do  you  only  remember  bits? — A  few  words  or  so. 

He  wanted  you  to  join  an  Irish  Brigade? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  that, the  Irish  Brigade  was  to  fight  for  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  it  was  to  fight  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

And  did  he  address  you  ?  Did  he  say  it  was  to  go  to  Ireland  when  the 
Germans  had  won  the  war? — No,  he  said  if  Germany  had  a  victory  on  sea. 

Did  he  speak  about  Germany  winning  the  war? — Yes. 

What  did  he  say  about  Germany  winning  the  war? — He  always  said 
that  Germany  would  win,  but  we  contradicted  him,  and  said  they  would  not. 

You  have  done  your  best  to  stop  it,  anyhow? — I  have  done  a  little  bit. 

I  suggest  to  you  that  he  represented  when  Germany  had  won  the  war 
that  the  Irish  Brigade  was  to  go  to  Ireland  unless  there  was  a  victory 
at  sea  meantime.  Was  that  what  he  said? — I  cannot  remember  that.  I 
remember  him  saying  if  Germany  had  a  victory  on  sea  he  would  land  us  in 
Ireland. 

But  there  is  no  doubt  it  was  in  Ireland  you  were  to  serve? — Oh,  yes, 
at  that  time. 

Did  he  speak  of  the  sources  of  payment? — Yes,  there  was  £10  men- 
tioned. 

Was  the  £10  mentioned  owing  to  somebody  asking  what  was  to  happen 
if  Germany  never  won  the  war? — Of  course,  I  could  not  say  that.  I  was 
not  there  always. 

What  had  happened  immediately  before  the  £10  was  mentioned?— 
He  was  just  speaking  about  the  Irish  Brigade,  and  somebody  asked  him 
about  money,  and  he  said  we  would  get  £10. 

Were  they  to  get  £10  in  any  event,  or  were  they  to  get  £10  to  go  to 
America  with  if  Germany  failed  to  win? — £10  if  they  joined  the  Irish 
Brigade. 

In  any  event? — Yes. 

27 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


John  Robinson 


Are  you  sure  of  that? — Yes. 

Is  it  true  that  he  always  spoke  on  the  assumption  that  Germany  was 
going  to  win  the  war? — Yes. 

And  his  idea  was,  in  that  event  he  wanted  to  free  Ireland.  Did  he 
say  that  1 — Yes. 

Did  one  or  two  men  ask  him  what  would  happen  supposing  Germany 
did  not  win  the  war? — Yes. 

Was  it  then  that  the  statement  was  made  about  the  £10? — In  or 
about  that  time. 

And  about  sending  them  to  America? — Yes.  The  £10  was  to  join 
the  brigade. 

Was  not  the  date  of  this  speech  about  a  fortnight  after  you  got  there? 
— Yes,  about  a  fortnight. 

Did  not  you  get  there  about  the  23rd  December? — Yes. 

A  number  of  Irishmen  reached  the  place  at  the  same  time,  about  the 
23rd  December? — Yes. 

In  the  commencement  of  his  speech  did  he  say  there  was  no  money 
in  it? — Yes,  at  the  start. 

At  the  start  he  said  there  was  no  money  in  it,  and  you  tell  me  that 
although  he  told  you  there  was  no  money  in  it  he  also  told  you  in  the 
same  speech  you  would  get  £10  merely  for  joining? — Yes.  That  was  the 
second  time  I  heard  him  speaking. 

Was  it  the  second  time  that  the  £10  came  in? — Yes. 

Are  you  sure  of  that? — Yes. 

Was  not  the  £10  to  take  you  to  America? — I  never  heard  about  that. 

You  are  a  native  of  Belfast,  I  think? — Yes. 

How  long  have  you  been  with  the  colours? — About  ten  years. 

I  suppose  from  time  to  time  you  have  been  back  in  Belfast? — Yes. 

Have  you  spent  any  time  in  Belfast  during  the  last  five  years? — Yes. 

Any  long  period  of  time?  Have  you  been  there  for  any  considerable 
time? — Yes. 

During  the  last  five  years? — Yes. 

You  have  spent  long  periods  of  time  there.  Did  you  hear  Sir  Roger 
Casement  in  his  speech  refer  to  the  formation  of  the  Irish  Volunteers  in 
Ireland? — I  never  heard  him  speak  about  it. 

At  any  time? — I  never  heard  him  speak  about  it. 

You  never  heard  him  at  any  time  describe  himself  as  the  organiser  of 
the  Irish  Volunteers  in  Ireland  ? — No,  I  do  not  think  I  ever  heard  that. 

Are  you  sure  about  that,  or  is  it  that  your  memory  fails  you? — No, 
I  never  heard  him  speaking  about  that. 

During  the  time  you  were  in  Belfast  during  the  last  five  years  had 
you  seen  bodies  of  armed  Volunteers  going  about  Belfast? — Yes. 

Nobody  interfering  with  them? — No. 

When  first  did  you  notice  these  armed  Volunteers  in  Belfast? — Do  you 
mean  the  National  Volunteers  or  the  Ulster  Volunteers  ? 

Were  not  there  both  sets? — Yes. 

The  Ulster  Volunteers  were  formed  first,  were  they  not? — Yes. 

And  the  National  Volunteers  were  formed  later? — Yes. 

To  resist,  the  Ulster  Volunteers  ? — Yes. 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  Robinson 

Did  you  attend  any  of  the  meetings  that  were  held  in  Belfast  in 
connection  with  the  armed  Volunteer  movement  on  either  side? — No. 

Was  there  great  excitement  in  Belfast  about  the  meetings  that  were 
held? — Not  very  often. 

Did  you  read  any  of  the  reports  that  were  circulated  about  the  forma- 
tion of  those  bodies? — No. 

You  read  none  ? — No. 

When  did  you  leave  Belfast  prior  to  the  war? — The  5th  August,  1914. 

You  practically  joined  from  Belfast? — Yes. 

Had  you  been  in  civil  employment? — Yes. 

I  did  not  appreciate  that,  I  beg  your  pardon.  Up  to  the  moment 
you  left  Belfast  were  there  bodies  openly  parading  Belfast  without  objec- 
tion from  anybody? — I  could  not  tell;  I  do  not  know  much  about  the 
Volunteers. 

You  could  see  armed  men  marching  about,  not  soldiers  or  policemen? — 
I  have  seen  armed  men. 

Marching  about? — Yes. 

Re-examined  by  the  SOLICITOR- GENERAL — You  told  the  jury  that  you 
heard  Sir  Roger  Casement  say  that  if  Germany  won  a  victory  at  sea  the 
Irish  Brigade  would  be  landed  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  who  would  send  the  Irish  Brigade  to  Ireland? — Germany 
would  send  us  to  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  what  they  were  to  do  when  they  got  there? — Free  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  whether  they  would  have  any  fighting  to  do? — He  did  not 
go  into  that;  he  isaid  it  was  to  free  Ireland  when  they  got  there. 

Did  he  say  from  whom  they  were  to  free  Ireland? — From  England. 

By  the  LORD  CHEEP  JUSTICE — Have  you  got  exhibit  No.  4  before  you? — 
Yes. 

Can  you  tell  us  did  you  ever  see  that  document  in  the  camp  when  Sir 
Roger  Casement  was  there? — Yes. 

Was  he  actually  in  the  camp? — Yes. 

Do  you  remember  when  that  was? — In  or  about  May. 

What  was  being  done  with  it? — There  were  about  a  dozen  copies  of  it 
issued  round  to  the  men ;  there  were  two  or  three  posted  on  the  doors  of 
the  barrack-room. 

When  you  say  twelve  were  issued  to  the  men  can  you  tell  us  were 
the  men  reading  them? — Yes. 

Several  of  them  ? — Yes  ;  it  was  issued  round  to  groups ;  several  would 
get  in  groups,  and  one  man  would  read  it. 

You  said  in  answer  to  the  Solicitor-General  Germany  would  send  the 
Irish  Brigade  to  free  Ireland  from  England  when  they  got  there? — Yes. 

Who  do  you  mean  by  "  they,"  when  "  they  "  got  there? — The  Irish 
Brigade. 

WILLIAM  EGAN,  examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I  live  at  14= 
Barrett  Street,  Dublin.  I  was  born  in  Kingstown,  and  I  went  to  school  in 
Dublin.  I  joined  the  Royal  Irish  Rifles  in  September,  1904.  There  was 
a  man  named  Bailey  in  the  same  regiment  whom  I  knew ;  I  had  gone  to 
school  with  him.  When  the  war  broke  out  I  went  with  my  regiment  to 
France  in  August,  1914.  I  was  wounded  at  Neuve  Chapelle  in  October, 

29 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

William  Egan 

1914,  and  I  was  taken  prisoner  by  the  Germans.  I  was  taken  to  Cologne, 
where  I  was  put  into  the  hospital,  Lazaretto,  No.  6.  I  remained  in 
Cologne  close  on  three  months,  and  then  I  was  sent  to  Limburg.  I  got 
there  about  3rd  February,  1915.  I  saw  Bailey  there. 

Did  you  recognise  him  at  once  and  speak  to  him? — Yes,  he  spoke  to 
me.  On  19th  February  I  was  passing  the  camp — at  the  time  I  was  in  a 
delicate  state  of  health — and  I  saw  a  man  speaking  to  three  prisoners.  He 
was  a  tall  man,  dressed  in  dark  clothing,  with  a  long  coat,  a  soft  hat,  and 
he  carried  an  umbrella  on  the  left  arm.  I  passed  on  and  did  not  take  any 
further  notice.  I  am  doubtful  whether  I  should  know  the  man  again. 
After  that  I  had  two  pamphlets  given  to  me.  One  of  them  was  given 
me  by  a  German  officer.  I  think  it  was  called  "  How  to  Free  Ireland/' 
but  I  am  not  sure.  I  also  received  a  book  along  with  the  pamphlet.  It 
was  given  to  us  by  a  German  sergeant.  I  only  read  a  small  part  of  the 
book;  it  was  concerning  '98.  The  title  was  "Crimes  Against  Ireland 
"  and  How  to  Free  It,"  and  it  was  edited  by  Sir  Roger  Casement.  I  did 
not  bring  it  away  with  me  from  the  camp  as  I  was  forbidden.  Shown 
exhibit  No.  4 — that  is  what  I  have  called  the  pamphlet.  It  was  given 
to  me  by  a  German  officer;  I  tore  it  up.  Besides  that  document  I  was 
given  another  form  by  a  German  sergeant.  I  left  it  on  the  table.  There 
were  many  of  them  in  the  room  at  the  time,  but  I  was  not  allowed  to 
bring  one  away. 

What  were  you  to  do  with  that  form? — We  were  to  answer  the  questions 
that  were  on  it.  I  filled  in  the  answers  and  gave  the  form  back  to  the 
sergeant.  While  I  was  there  a  number  of  the  prisoners  joined  the  Irish 
Brigade,  among  them  being  Bailey,  Scanlan,  and  Greer,  all  from  my  regi- 
ment, the  Royal  Irish  Rifles.  Being  shown  the  photograph,  exhibit  5 — I 
recognise  five  out  of  the  six  men  in  that  photograph.  The  first  man  on 
the  right  is  Quinless,  the  third  man  is  O'Callaghan,  the  centre  man  is 
Bailey,  the  sixth  man  is  Keogh,  and  the  seventh  man  is  a  German  interpreter 
of  the  name  of  Metz.  I  saw  some  of  the  men  who  joined  the  brigade  after 
they  joined  it.  Their  uniform  appeared  to  me  to  be  of  a  silver-grey  with 
green  facings,  and  there  was,  I  am  not  sure,  whether  it  was  a  harp  or  a 
shamrock  on  the  collar,  but  a  crown  without  the  harp  in  the  cap.  I  had 
not  seen  this  uniform  before  till  I  saw  it  on  the  Irish  Brigade.  I  only 
saw  two  men  wearing  a  belt — Bailey  and  Quinless.  I  saw  them  coming 
from  the  town  of  Limburg ;  they  passed  me  on  the  road ;  they  both  had 
belts  and  side-arms  of  a  German  pattern  on.  I  did  not  join  the  Irish 
Brigade.  About  fifty-two  men  joined  the  brigade.  After  this  we  seemed 
to  get  treated  worse  because  we  would  not  join  the  brigade.  The  food  was 
cut;  they  made  our  allowance  in  the  food  less  than  it  really  was.  I 
arrived  in  England  on  7th  February  this  year ;  I  was  exchanged.  When  I 
left  Germany  Bailey  was  at  Zossen.  He  used  to  come  to  Limburg  for 
recruiting  purposes.  I  did  not  speak  to  Bailey  after  he  joined  the 
brigade.  I  saw  him  at  the  Castle  at  Dublin  on  6th  May,  1916.  I  recog- 
nised him  there,  and  he  seemed  to  know  me. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — You  lived  in  Dublin  when  the  war 
broke  out? — Yes. 

Were  you  in  civil  employment? — I  was. 

Living  there  in  Dublin? — Yes. 


Evidence  for   Prosecution. 

William  Egan 

Where  were  you  engaged  ;  what  business  were  you  in  ? — I  was  a  porter 
in  the  City  of  Dublin  Steam  Packet  Company. 

Were  you  in  Dublin  on  the  Sunday  before  the  war  broke  out? I  was. 

Could  you  remember  where  you  were  on  that  Sunday? — I  was  at 
Kingstown. 

Were  you  in  the  city  at  all  during  the  afternoon? — Not  to  my  know- 
ledge. 

You  were  out  at  Kingstown? — Yes. 

The  Sunday  I  am  referring  to  is  the  Sunday  of  the  Hogue  affair ;  do 
you  remember  the  Sunday  that  the  goods  were  landed  at  Hogue? — I  do 
not  remember. 

Were  you  not  in  the  city  that  day? — No. 

The  war  broke  out  a  few  days  afterwards? — Yes. 

Even  prior  to  that  incident,  did  you  see  Volunteers  armed  and  drilling 
in  Dublin? — No. 

Did  you  see  them  drilling? — No. 

You  never  saw  the  Volunteers  drilling  in  Dublin? — No. 

Or  marching  through  the  city? — No. 

Did  you  ever  see  them  at  all  until  you  left  Dublin? — I  was  not 
interested  in  them. 

Without  being  interested  in  them,  if  a  body  of  armed  men,  who  were 
neither  policemen  nor  soldiers,  passed  you  in  the  street  would  you  notice 
them? — I  would. 

Did  such  bodies  pass  you  in  the  streets  in  Dublin  ? — No. 

Are  you  sure  of  that? — Yes. 

You  never  saw  them? — No. 

With  regard  to  the  recruiting  that  you  say  was  going  on  in  Limburg, 
when  were  your  rations  reduced? — They  were  reduced  in  February. 

At  the  end  of  February  ? — About  the  middle  of  February. 

Some  time  in  February  at  all  events? — Yes. 

What  rations  were  reduced? — The  bread  rations. 

Was  it  reduced  for  every  one  in  the  camp? — It  was. 

Was  there  a  further  reduction  of  rations  in  April  ? — Yes. 

For  every  one  in  the  camp? — Yes. 

There  was  no  more  reduction  of  rations  after  April? — No,  not  that 
I  know  of. 

Was  not  recruiting  going  on  for  the  Irish  Brigade  after  that? — It  was 
going  on  all  through  my  time  there. 

So  that  it  was  not  only  the  men  who  did  not  join,  but  every  one  in 
the  camp  had  their  rations  reduced,  had  not  they? — The  men  who  joined 
the  brigade,  their  rations  were  not  reduced. 

Were  not  they  removed  from  the  camp  ? — They  were,  to  the  top  of  the 
camp. 

They  were  removed  to  a  camp  of  their  own? — Yes. 

Was  it  within  the  same  lines  ? — Yes. 

But  they  were  removed  to  the  top  of  the  camp? — Yes. 

They  had  privileges  that  no  one  else  had,  you  say? — Yee. 

Better  food?— Yes 

And  given  new  uniforms,  apparently? — Yes. 

31 


Sir  Roger  Casement, 


Michael  O'Connor 


MICHAEL  O'CONNOR,  examined  by  Mr.  BODKIN — I  am  a  corporal  in  the 
Royal  Irish  Regiment.  My  home  is  in  Wexford.  I  went  with  the  British 
Expeditionary  Force  in  August,  1914,  and  I  was  wounded  and  taken 
prisoner  by  the  Germans  on  20th  October.  After  a  little  while  I  was 
taken  to  Darmstadt,  and  then  about  the  middle  of  December  I  went  to 
Limburg.  When  I  first  got  to  Limburg  there  were  about  300  Irish 
prisoners  of  war  there.  Shortly  after  they  were  joined  by  other  1600,  who 
came  from  Hamlin,  Sennelager,  and  Munster,  so  that  there  would  be  about 
2000  British  prisoners  who  were  Irishmen.  I  remember  seeing  Sir  Roger 
Casement  at  Limburg  about  the  end  of  December,  1914.  I  heard  him 
addressing  some  men.  He  said,  "  Now  is  the  time  for  to  fight  or  strike 
"a,  blow  for  Ireland,"  and  that  England  was  nearly  beaten.  I  should 
think  there  were  about  seventy  men  listening  to  him.  I  was  on  the 
outskirts  of  the  crowd.  I  have  told  all  that  I  heard  him  say.  I  saw  him 
on  that  later  occasion,  but  I  did  not  hear  what  he  said.  The  people  were 
hissing  and  booing  him  down  the  lines1  that  day.  He  said  that  those  who 
hissed  him  were  followers  of  Johnnie  Redmond,  the  recruiting  sergeant  of 
the  British  Army.  A  sergeant-major  of  the  4th  Dragoon  Guards  called 
Casement  a  traitor.  That  sergeant-major  was  sent  to  Giessen  or  some 
other  camp  for  punishment  along  with  Corporal  Robinson.  These  are  the 
only  occasions  on  which  I  saw  Sir  Roger  Casement  at  the  camp.  I  left  the 
camp  in  the  next  autumn,  in  October.  I  saw  two  books  at  the  camp. 
One  was  entitled  "  Crimes  Against  Ireland,"  by  Sir  Roger  Casement,  and 
the  other  was  entitled  "  The  King,  the  Kaiser f  and  Ireland."  I  could  not 
see  any  author's  name  to  that  last  production.  Shown  exhibit  No.  4, 
address  headed  "  Irishmen  " — I  saw  that  in  printed  form  in  the  camp.  It 
was  not  in  typewritten  form.  I  could  not  tell  how  it  came  to  be  amongst 
the  men  in  the  camp,  but  I  know  the  books1  and  the  papers,  The  Con- 
tinental Times  and  The  Gaelic  American,  were  distributed.  I  saw  the 
document  which  is  similar  to  exhibit  No.  4  shortly  after  getting  to  the 
camp.  I  could  not  tell  the  exact  date,  but  it  was  long  after  Sir  Roger 
Casement  addressed  the  first  meeting.  I  could  not  say  whether  it  was 
before  or  after  he  addressed  the  second  meeting.  I  left  Limburg  in 
October,  1915,  and  I  came  home  as  an  exchanged  prisoner  of  war.  I  saw 
Bailey  in  Limburg  Camp  on  a  couple  of  occasions,  and  I  also  saw  him  in 
Dublin  when  I  got  back. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — You  fixed  the  date  of  the  first  time 
you  heard  Sir  Roger  speak  at  the  end  of  December? — Yes. 

The  next  time  about  the  3rd  of  January? — Yes,  the  next  time  about 
the  3rd  of  January. 

Have  you  a  pretty  clear  recollection  of  how  the  dates  stand? — Yes,  in 
January. 

January  was  the  second  occasion? — Yes. 

The  other  may  have  been  earlier? — It  was  close  at  the  end  of 
December,  about  the  22nd. 

What  was  the  last  time  you  saw  him  in  camp  ? — The  3rd  of  January. 

You  never  saw  Sir  Roger  Casement  in  the  camp  afterwards? — No, 
but  I  heard  he  was  there  on  the  19th. 

Do  you  remember  ever  hearing  of  his  being  there  afterwards? — No. 

The  19th  of  February  was  the  last  day  upon  which  you  ever  heard  he 
was  there,  but  you  did  not  see  him  on  that  occasion  ? — No,  I  did  not. 
32 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Michael  O'Connor 

In  that  first  speech  how  much  did  you  hear,  two  or  three  minutes,  or 
ten  minutes? — I  was  just  on  the  outskirts  of  the  crowd;  I  heard  them 
passing  remarks. 

Did  you  remain  on  the  outskirts  of  the  crowd  only  a  few  minutes? — Yes. 

You  stayed  there  as  long  as  there  was  anything  going  on,  I  suppose  ? — 
No. 

Did  you  go  away  after  a  few  minutes? — Yes. 

You  heard  him  say  that  England  was  nearly  beaten ;  did  you  hear  him 
suggest  the  war  was  nearly  over  then  ? — No,  I  did  not. 

England  was1  nearly  beaten? — He  could  have  said  it,  but  I  did  not  know. 

If  England  was  nearly  beaten,  was  not  it  in  the  context  that  the  war 
was  nearly  over? — It  might  have  been. 

Then  whatever  he  was  talking  about,  he  spoke  of  it  in  the  context  that 
the  war,  at  all  events,  was  nearly  over? — Yes. 

Do  you  assent  to  that? — I  assent  to  that. 

The  war  being  nearly  over,  he  was  recruiting  an  Irish  Brigade? — Yes. 

MICHAEL  MOORE,  examined  by  Mr.  BODKIN — I  am  No.  3457,  Royal 
Army  Medical  Corps,  serving  on  H. M.S.  "  Cambria  "  at  Dover.  My  home 
is  in  Kilkenny.  On  9th  August,  1904,  I  joined  the  South  Lancashire 
Regiment,  and  then  I  was  transferred  to  the  Royal  Army  Medical  Corps.  I 
went  with  that  arm  to  France  in  August,  1914.  There  I  was  taken 
prisoner,  and  sent  to  Sennelager  Camp.  I  stayed  at  Sennelager  from  1st 
September  till  22nd  December,  when  I  went  to  Limburg  Cainp.  There 
were  others  with  me,  all  Irishmen,  and  they  came  from  different  regiments. 
They  numbered  about  2000,  and  they  came  from  Sennelager.  At  Limburg, 
when  I  got  there,  I  found  other  regiments  there  from  other  camps.  I  remem- 
ber Sir  Roger  Ca  sement  coming  to  Limburg  Camp.  I  had  been  there  for  about 
a  week  before  I  first  saw  him.  I  saw  him  passing  through  the  lines,  and 
at  the  end  of  the  lines  I  saw  him  speaking  to  some  men.  I  could  hear  what 
he  said.  The  first  occasion  on  which  I  heard  him  address  any  men  was  on 
or  about  3rd  or  4th  January,  1915.  He  told  them  he  came  there  for  the 
purpose  of  forming  an  Irish  Brigade,  and  wanted  the  men  to  join  it.  That 
is  all  I  heard  him  say  on  that  occasion.  About  the  end  of  February, 
very  nearly  two  months  later,  I  heard  him  again  address  other  men  in  the 
Russian  Camp  at  Limburg.  When  any  Irishmen  joined  the  Irish  Brigade 
they  were  sent  up  to  the  Russian  Camp.  I  saw,  roughly,  about  fifty  there  ; 
they  were  dressed  in  khaki,  except  one  or  two  who  were  in  Irish  Brigade 
uniform.  I  know  the  names  of  those  one  or  two.  Keogh  was  one,  and 
Dowling  was  another.  Quinless  was  also  there.  Keogh  and  Dowling  were 
the  only  two  in  that  new  uniform.  The  others  who  had  joined  the  camp 
were  in  khaki,  and  some  in  civilians'  clothes.  Those  who  had  joined  the 
Irish  Brigade  stayed  in  the  Russian  Camp ;  the  Russian  lines  are  in  the 
same  camp.  The  other  Irish  prisoners  who  were  in  the  Russian  part  of 
the  camp  had  been  marched  up  under  an  escort.  That  was  only  on  one 
occasion;  I  was  only  taken  up  on  one  occasion.  On  that  occasion  I  was 
marched  up  by  a  German  escort.  We  were  marched  up  a  section  each 
time;  that  would  be  about  forty-five  or  fifty  men.  When  I  got  there  on 
the  occasion  on  which  I  was  one  of  the  section  I  saw  Keogh  and  Dowling 
there  and  Sir  Roger  Casement.  Sir  Roger  Casement  asked  those  men  to 
join  the  Irish  Brigade,  I  being  among  the  men,  and  he  said  any  man  that 
D  33 


Sir  Roger  Casement, 


Michael  Moore 


would  join  the  Irish.  Brigade  he  would  give  him  uniform,  better  food,  and 
better  housing.  He  also  said  in  case  of  the  Germans  losing  the  war  he 
would  send  those  men  to  America,  give  them  a  free  passage,  and  £1 0  or  £20 
pocket  money,  and  guarantee  employment  in  America.  The  Irish  Brigade 
was  to  be  sent  from  Limburg  to  a  camp  outside  Berlin ;  he  said  they  were 
to  be  the  guests  of  the  German  Government.  He  also  said  the  first  German 
victory  on  the  water  he  would  land  the  brigade  in  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  what  kind  of  victory  ? — Naval  victory.  The  Irish  Brigade 
were  to  be  landed  in  Ireland.  I  expect  they  were  to  be  landed  in  Ireland 
from  German  vessels.  I  did  not  hear  him  say  how  the  Irish  Brigade  were 
going  to  get  to  Ireland,  but  he  said  he  would  land  them  in  Ireland.  There 
is  nothing  more  I  can  tell  that  I  heard  Sir  Roger  Casement  say  that  day. 
I  came  back  to  the  camp.  I  never  heard  him  on  any  other  occasion — only 
on  two  occasions.  As  to  how  what  he  was  saying  on  this  day  that  I 
listened  to  him  was  received  by  the  men,  some  hissed  and  booed  him. 
Nobody  agreed  to  join  on  that  occasion.  After  that  we  were  marched  back 
down  to  our  own  camp.  Our  rations  were  cut  down  about  February  or 
shortly  after  February,  about  a  week  or  fourteen  days  after  this  speech  I 
heard.  I  saw  a  book  entitled  "  Crimesi  Against  Ireland"  in  the  camp. 
That  book  was  printed  in  English.  There  were  three  or  four  copies  between 
every  room.  They  were  distributed  by  the  Germans.  (Shown  exhibit 
No.  4.)  I  have  seen  a  paper  similar  to  that  in  camp.  I  have  seen  more  than 
one.  They  were  distributed  to  the  men  by  the  Germans.  They  were 
distributed  amongst  the  men  some  time  about  the  month  of  February.  I 
could  not  exactly  say  whether  it  was  before  or  after  this  speech,  of  Sir  Roger 
Casement  which  I  have  been  telling  about,  but  it  was  about  that  time. 
Papers  were  also  distributed,  The  Continental  Times  and  The  Gaelic 
American.  I  left  Limburg  in  October  of  last  year  as  an  exchanged 
prisoner.  After  a  little  while  I  rejoined  the  Royal  Army  Medical  Corps  at 
Aldershot.  The  uniform  in  which  those  two  men  were  was  a  light  green 
uniform  with  dark  green  facings;  it  was  a  German  pattern  tunic.  They 
wore  German  side-arms,  a  brown  belt,  and  a  German  bayonet. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Apparently  Sir  Roger  Casement 
discussed  what  was  to  happen  to  the  Irish  Brigade  if  Germany  lost  the 
war,  did  not  he? — Yes. 

In  that  event  the  Irish  Brigade  would  go  to  America? — Yes. 

If  Germany  lost  the  war.  I  suggest  to  you  that  he  said  that  he 
would  land  them  in  Ireland  if  Germany  won  the  war? — If  there  was  a  sea 
battle,  and  if  Germany  came  out  victorious  in  the  first  sea  battle,  he 
would  land  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Ireland. 

Did  he  speak  of  the  Irish  Volunteer  movement? — Not  to  my  know- 
ledge. 

Or  did  he  speak  of  the  Home  Rule  movement  in  Ireland  or  getting 
Home  Rule  for  Ireland? — I  have  never  heard  him. 

Was  there  no  reference  to  Home  Rule  in  the  event  of  Germany  winning 
the  war?  Was  there  no  reference  to  Home  Rule? — There  was  one,  that 
Germany  would  give  Ireland  Home  Rule. 

If  she  won  the  war? — If  she  won  the  war. 

But  do  you  tell  me  that  there  was  no  reference  to  Home  Rule  to  be 
won  by  the  Irish  Brigade? — No. 

Are  you  sure  of  that? — I  have  never  heard  him  say  it. 
34 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  Neill 

JOHN  NEILL,  examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I  live  at  Borris, 
Balnagree,  County  Carlow.  I  am  No.  4231,  2nd  Battalion,  18th  Royal 
Irish.  I  was  wounded  and  taken  prisoner  at  La  Bassee.  I  was  taken  to 
Hanover,  where  there  were  other  Irish  prisoners. 

What  happened  just  before  you  left  Hanover? — There  was  a  German 
general  came  there  and  he  inquired  for  all  Irishmen 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — This  is  something  which  took  place  at  Hanover  with 
which  the  prisoner  is  in  no  way  connected. 

The  WITNESS — He  inquired  for  all  Irishmen. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Wait  a  moment;  it  is  not  necessary  to  have 
that. 

The  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — The  charge  is  that  the  prisoner  aided  and 
supported  the  German  Government.  Helped  them  in  what?  In  seducing 
British  soldiers  to  join  the  German  Army  or  fight  for  the  Germans.  That 
means  they  were  all  engaged  in  one  common  object  for  one  common 
purpose.  I  submit  we  have  a  right  to  prove  what  the  Germans  were 
trying  to  do  when  we  are  proving  that  the  prisoner  helped  to  do  it.  May 
I  read  one  passage  from  Archbold,  where  the  cases  are  summed  up  at 
page  400  :  "In  cases  of  conspiracy,  and  of  high  treason  encompassing 
"  the  King's  death,  &c.,  or  in  which  the  case  for  the  Crown  is  that  the 
1 '  crime  was  the  result  of  a  conspiracy,  anything  said  or  written  by  one  of 
"  the  accomplices,  not  as  a  confession  simply,  but  for  the  purpose  of 
"  furthering  the  common  design,  is  admissible  evidence  against  the 
"  others  ";  and  there  are  other  passages  of  the  same  kind. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  will  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  is  no  charge 
of  conspiracy  here  at  all.  I  quite  agree  that  in  a  case  like  Mulcahy 
you  may  possibly  have  charges  against  a  man  of  being  engaged  in  con- 
spiracy by  way  of  treason  with  a  number  of  individuals.  Having  charged 
that,  you  may  first  prove  the  conspiracy  and  then  prove  any  acts  of 
Mulcahy — where  the  act  of  each  conspirator  is  held  to  be  the  act  of 
every  member  of  the  body,  but  where  it  starts  with  no  conspiracy,  to 
assume  that  a  conspiracy  has  been  not  only  charged,  but  proved,  is  the 
first  step  in  what  is  now  sought  to  be  done,  namely,  the  admission  of 
this  evidence.  But  there  is  no  charge  against  Sir  Roger  Casement  of 
conspiring  with  any  person  or  persons  in  Germany.  There  is  no  allegation 
that  he  confederated  with  any  member  of  the  German  Army  in  doing 
this;  the  charge  before  you,  my  lord,  is  a  charge  simply  of  doing  an 
act  which  is  the  personal  act  of  the  man  himself,  and  in  the  absence 
of  some  connection,  even  in  that  case,  the  acts  of  his  agents  for  the 
furtherance  of  his  purposes,  if  you  prove  them  to  be  his  agents,  are 
to  be  admissible,  but  the  statements!  and  acts  of  persons  whom,  as  far 
as  the  evidence  goes,  he  has  never  seen  in  his  life  cannot  be  introduced, 
I  submit. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE' — May  it  not  be  a  step  in  proving  he  was 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  in  Germany? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  submit  not.  What  is  proposed  to  be  put  in  evidence, 
as  I  understand  from  the  notice  furnished,  is,  first  of  all,  a  speech,  or 
observations,  made  by  a  German  general  at  a  place  where  Sir  Roger 
Casement  is  never  alleged  to  have  been;  it  is  in  some  strange  camp. 
Assume  the  charge  is  that  he  adhered  to  the  King's  enemies,  the  statement 

35 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


John  Neill 


of  one  of  the  King's  enemies  is  not  the  evidence  of  that  charge,  I  most 
respectfully  submit. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Not  the  mere  proof  of  the  statement  made 
by  one  of  the  King's  enemies,  but  I  understand  the  way  it  is  put  by  the 
(Sown  is  that  he  was  working  in  assisting  the  King's  enemies,  and  in 
that  sense  was  adhering  to  them  by  a  number  of  acts  which  are  then 
given  as  the  overt  acts. 

Mr.   SULLIVAN — That  is  the  charge. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — This  evidence  is  said  to  be  given  as  a  step 
in  proving  he  adhered  to  the  King's  enemies,  the  fact  that  the  man  went 
from  Hanover  to  Limburg,  of  course,  is  clearly  admissible;  that  you 
would  not  object  to. 

Mr.    SULLIVAN — Your  lordship  will  take  my   submission. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  only  other  point  is  whether  the  general's 
observations  are  admissible. 

[Their  lordships  conferred.] 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  understand  you  to  press  the  point.  You 
want  us  to  rule  upon  it,  Mr.  Solicitor -General  1  We  shall  have  no  hesita- 
tion in  ruling  if  you  desire  it;  the  only  question  is  whether  you  think 
it  is  sufficiently  important. 

The  SOLICITOR- GENERAL — I  strongly  submit  I  am  entitled  to  put  it, 
but  I  do  not  press  it  strongly  at  all,  that  I  should  ask  what  was  said.  I  did 
want  to  ask  whether  a  speech  was  made;  I  do  not  care  very  much 
whether  he  tells  the  jury  or  not  what  was  said. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  the  only  point  upon  which  there 
can  be  any  discussion.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  doubt  what  the 
ruling  should  be,  but  what  is  the  value  of  it  if  you  get  it?  I  suggest  it  is 
hardly  worth  pressing  if  you  get  the  fact  of  the  speech. 

The  SOLICITOR- GENERAL — Then  I  will  not  press  it.  I  recognise  the 
objection,  but  not  any  argument  in  favour  of  it. 

Examination  continued — About  three  days  before  I  left  Hanover  a 
German  general  came  there  and  he  called  all  the  Irishmen  together. 
Then  he  made  a  very  small  speech  to  us.  He  told  us  how  the  English 
behaved  very  badly. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — We  must  not  have  that. 

Examination  continued — After  that  small  speech  he  never  called  us 
together  any  more.  Nothing  else  happened  before  I  left  Hanover.  When 
I  left  Hanover  I  went  to  Limburg.  A  draft  of  150  Irishmen  came  with 
me  from  Hanover  to  Limburg.  There  were  quite  a  few  soldiers  with  me 
who  were  not  Irishmen.  When  we  got  to  Limburg  some  of  those  who 
were  not  Irishmen  were  found  out  and  sent  away  to  some  other  place; 
where  we  never  knew.  When  I  got  to  Limburg  I  saw  Sir  Roger  Case- 
ment there.  I  saw  him  on  the  evening  when  we  got  to  Limburg.  That 
evening  he  said  how  all  the  Irishmen  looked  very  smart  and  very  soldier- 
like men,  and  that  after  a  short  time  at  Limburg  he  would  bring  all  the 
Irishmen  back  again  and  make  them  as  smart  as  ever.  Casement  did  not 
say  that  to  me ;  he  said  it  out  to  the  crowd.  When  we  got  to  Limburg 
we  were  all  together,  the  whole  draft  of  150  who  had  come  from  Hanover. 
Casement  made  a  speech  to  all  of  us.  On  that  evening  he  never  men- 
36 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  Neill 

tioned  anything  about  the  Irish  Brigade,  but  he  told  us  in  his  speech  that 
on  the  following  Sunday  we  were  all  to  go  to  church  service.  He  said  that 
all  the  Irishmen  there  at  present  should  have  clothes,  and  footwear 
given  to  them;  we  were  to  get  wooden  shoes  on  the  following  morning, 
and  were  to  be  well  fed,  and  well  looked  after  by  the  Germans.  That 
is  what  he  said  to  us  on  the  evening  we  got  there.  Personally  I  did 
not  know  who  he  was :  he  never  told  us  his  name  on  that  evening — not 
for  a  couple  of  evenings  afterwards.  That  is  nearly  all  he  said  that 
evening  as  well  as  I  can  remember.  Next  morning  we  got  the  wooden 
clogs,  and  Sir  Roger  was  in  the  camp  on  the  following  morning  again. 
He  did  not  say  anything  to  us  then  about  joining  the  Irish  Brigade :  he 
never  mentioned  anything  about  the  Irish  Brigade  at  that  time.  He 
came  into  all  the  barrack-rooms.  He  never  told  us  who  he  was.  As 
near  as  I  can  remember  that  was  on  a  Friday,  and  it  was  on  Thursday 
we  arrived.  On  the  Friday  he  came  again  to  the  camp,  and  then  some- 
thing happened  on  the  following  Sunday. 

On  the  Sunday  we  went  down  to  church  service,  and  we  went  into 
a  barrack-room  where  church  service  was  supposed  to  be  going  on.  When 
the  crowd  of  us  went  into  the  barrack-room  we  saw  Sir  Roger  on  a  table; 
he  was  getting  ready  to  give  a  speech  in  the  barrack-room.  He  had  an 
Irish  Brigade  book  in  his  hand.  He  said  he  was  going  away  for  the  space 
of  a  fortnight,  and  when  he  came  back  he  wanted  to  see  fifty  names  in 
this  book,  and  with  the  fifty  names  which  were  to  be  in  this  book  for  men 
to  join  the  Irish  Brigade  he  was  going  to  form  an  Irish  Brigade.  He 
also  said  the  German  Government  would  equip  the  brigade  with  arms  and 
ammunition  and  uniforms.  He  also  mentioned  something  about  pay; 
that  the  Irish  Brigade  would  get  something  about  from  £10  to  £20.  He 
did  not  say  where  they  would  get  that  from.  He  also  told  the  Irishmen 
on  that  Sunday  that  they  wer£  all  to  join  this  brigade,  and  that  if  Germany 
ever  gained  a  naval  victory  they  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Ireland, 
and  to  strike  a  blow  for  old  Ireland  once  again  and  to  gain  Home  Rule.  He 
also  said  how  the  Germans  were  very  much  like  the  Irish  and  the  Irish  very 
much  like  the  Germans.  Personally  I  did  not  believe  that.  He  also  said 
that  Ireland  had  the  strongest  power  now  in  the  world  at  her  back.  That 
is  all  I  remember.  He  also  said  he  would  leave  the  Irish  Brigade  book  with 
some  sergeant  over  some  section,  and  whoever  wanted  to  join  this  brigade 
was  to  sign  his  name  to  this  book,  and  when  they  joined  the  Brigade  they 
were  free  men,  and  they  would  be  sent  to  Berlin  and  well  looked  after.  He 
also  wanted  to  know  if  all  the  men  there  at  the  meeting  were  all  true-bred 
Irishmen.  No  one  signed  the  book  on  that  day.  The  book  was  left  with 
some  sergeant — I  forget  the  name  of  the  sergeant  whom  it  was  left  with. 
Casement  then  went  away.  I  think  he  came  back  on  the  following  day. 
He  did  not  do  anything  on  that  day  so  far  as  I  recollect.  He  gave  no 
sipeech  or  anything  like  that,  but  he  visited  both  barrack- rooms  again. 
Then  he  left  us,  and  it  was  a  fortnight  before  he  came  back  again.  I  did 
not  see  anything  of  the  book  after  he  left  or  before  he  came  back  again — 
I  never  saw  anything  of  the  book.  He  said  he  was  going  to  Berlin  for  that. 
As  to  the  date  -when  he  came  back,  to  the  best  of  my  memory  it  was  either 
at  the  latter  end  of  December  or  early  in  January. 

When  he  came  back  on  that  occasion  he  said  something  to  the  men. 

37 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


John  Neill 


He  told  the  Irishmen  then,  when  he  came  back,  that  he  was  very  dis- 
appointed to  see  that  there  were  no  names  entered  in  his  book  for  this  Irish 
Brigade,  and  he  also  wanted  to  know  what  were  the  Irishmen  thinking  of 
if  they  said  they  would  not  go  and  fight  for  their  country  now  at  this  time, 
and  that  England  was  completely  beat,  and  that  there  was  no  danger  of 
their  not  being  landed  in  Ireland,  and  that  he  was  the  head  man  over  the 
Irish  Volunteers  in  Ireland,  and  that  he  was  very  proud  to  see  how  smart- 
looking  they  looked,  and  he  also  hoped  to-  see  the  Irish  Brigade  would  soon 
be  formed,  and  to  go  and  fight  for  Ireland.  No  one  signed  the  book  that 
day.  I  never  saw  any  one  sign  the  book  at  all.  When  Casement  went 
away  I  cannot  say  whether  anybody  went  with  him.  When  he  came 
back  the  second  time  a  corporal  of  the  name  of  Corporal  Quinless  joined  the 
Irish  Brigade.  That  was  on  his  second  visit  to  Limburg — the  one  I  have 
been  speaking  of  at  the  end  of  December  or  early  in  January.  On  that 
occasion  Corporal  Quinless  joined.  Corporal  Keogh  also  joined.  After 
they  had  joined  they  left  the  camp.  I  saw  them  afterwards,  and  when 
I  saw  them  again  they  were  dressed  in  a  uniform.  It  was  a  greenish- 
coloured  uniform,  something  like  the  German  uniform,  and  there  was  a 
harp  and  a  shamrock  on  it.  I  cannot  say  whether  they  had  any  arms. 
They  had  no  arms  with  them  in  the  barrack-room  that  I  was  in  when  we 
were  brought  up  to  visit  them  in  this  barrack-room  or  this  Irish  Brigade 
office.  When  they  came  back  to  Limburg  Casement  was  there,  but  he 
wa®  not  with  them  in  the  barrack-room.  When  these  two  men  came  back 
they  stayed  in  one  of  the  barrack-rooms-  down  at  the  top  end  of  this:  camp, 
and  all  the  sections  of  the  remaining  Irishmen  were  marched  up  in  sections 
to  this  Irish  Brigade  office,  and  brought  before  these  three  men,  and  asked 
different  questions  about  their  country  and  what  they  thought  of  the  Irish 
Brigade,  and  now  was  the  time  to  fight  for  old  Ireland  and  gain  Home  Rule 
once  more.  There  were  three  men — Quinless,  and  I  think  the  other  two 
men  were  two  namesakes,  two  Keoghs.  It  happened  more  than  once 
that  we  were  marched  up  before  these  men.  Some  of  the  men  enlisted 
in  the  Irish  Brigade.  When  the  men  had  joined  the  Irish  Brigade  they 
were  sent  to  Berlin. 

Casement  then  went  away  for  a  month.  He  said  he  was  going  away 
for  a  month,  but  he  never  said  where  he  was  going  to,  and  he  wished  to 
see  this  brigade  very  strong  when  he  came  back.  He  came  back  in  about 
a  month  after,  and  a  clergyman,  Father  Nicholson,  came  there  next. 
When  Casement  came  back  he  just  told  these  people  that  joined  the  Irish 
Brigade  when  this  Irish  Brigade  was  formed  they  were  first  to  go  to  help  the 
Turks  against  the  Russians.  After  he  came  back  Sir  Roger  Casement 
spoke  to  the  men  in  my  hearing.  He  spoke  to  them  in  the  camp  in 
No.  1  Lines,  No.  1  Company,  No.  2  Battalion.  He  used  to  come  into 
the  barrack -rooms.  He  made  a  speech  in  several  places — outside  and 
inside  in  the  barrack-rooms  he  made  these  speeches.  Those  are  the  words 
that  passed  from  Casement  on  this  occasion — first  of  all,  the  Irish  Brigade 
were  to  go  and  help  the  Turks  against  the  Russians,  and,  secondly,  they 
were  to  go  and  help  the  Germans  against  the  British,  and,  thirdly,  they 
were  to  go  and  shed  blood  for  their  own  native  country.  I  heard  him  say 
those  things.  I  never  sa,w  Casement  after  that.  There  were  fifty  men 
joined  the  Irish  Brigade  up  to  the  time  when  I  came  away  from  Limburg. 
38 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  Neill 

The  treatment  and  food  got  very  bad.  We  noticed  there  was  a  great 
difference  in  it  from,  the  first  time  we  went  to  Limburg.  We  were  well 
treated  for  about  a  fortnight,  or  near  that;  then  the  food  commenced  to 
be  reduced.  The  bread  was  reduced,  the  meat  was  reduced,  and  potatoes 
were  reduced.  I  came  away  from  Limburg  on  the  20th  May,  1915. 

Crossi-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAJST — You  have  told  us  that  you  heard 
Sir  Roger  Casement  speak  about  the  Irish  Brigade  fighting  for  the  Turks 
against  the  Russians;  is  that  true? — Yes,  that  is  true. 

Did  you  tell  anybody  that  it  was  Quinless  had  stated  that  to  you? — 
Quinless  also  stated  that. 

At  the  same  time  or  at  a  different  time? — At  a  different  time. 

Who  was  present  when  Sir  Roger  Casement  stated  it? — There  were 
about  fifty  present  or  more. 

Do  you  know  Michael  Moore,  of  the  Royal  Army  Medical  Corps?  Was 
he  in  the  camp  with  you  ? — You  see  I  forget  them  all.  I  could  not  recog- 
nise every  man  in  the  camp. 

(At  this  stage  Michael  Moore  came  into  Court.) 

Did  you  see  this  man  in  the  camp? — I  might  have  seen  him,  but  I 
forget  him. 

I  will  have  to  have  Robinson  and  Cronin  in.  Did  you  know  Daniel 
O'Brien  in  the  camp  ? — No. 

Did  you  know  Michael  O'Connor  in  the  camp? — Yes. 

Was  he  present  there? — Yes,  he  was  in  the  camp. 

On  this  occasion? — I  cannot  say  on  this  occasion,  but  he  was  in  the 
hospital  some  time  in  Limburg. 

What  date  do  you  fix  for  the  speech  about  the  Turks? — I  disremember 
the  dates.  I  cannot  think  of  all,  you  know. 

As  near  as  you  can  go? — I  cannot  think  of  any  dates. 

Can  you  fix  the  date  you  arrived  at  Limburg? — As  far  as  I  can  go, 
we  arrived  at  Limburg  early  in  December,  1914.  That  is  as  near  as  I 
can  go. 

How  long  after  that  did  you  hear  this  talk  about  the  Turks  ? — I  have 
heard  the  talk  about  the  Turks  several  times. 

How  long  after  that  did  you  hear  the  talk  about  the  Turks  by  Sir 
Roger  Casement? — He  just  mentioned  about  the  Turks  once. 

How  long  was  that  after  you  had  arrived  in  Limburg?  Listen,  is  this 
true,  "  Casement  came  back  about  the  1st  of  February,  191 5. "  Is  that 
true? — Yes. 

"And  Father  Nicholson  oarne  at  the  same  time."  Is  that  true? — 
Yes,  that  is  true.  Father  Nicholson  came  there  about  that  time. 

Then  that  is  true.  Would  this  be  true,  that  you  saw  Casement  in  the 
camp  at  this  time,  but  he  did  not  speak  to  you,  and  you  never  saw  him 
again?  Is  that  true? — At  the  time  I  never  saw  him.  He  went  away.  I 
have  seen  him  several  times  in  Limburg. 

On  this  occasion,  will  you  fix  the  date  of  the  occasion,  the  only  occa- 
sion, so  it  should  be  rooted  in  your  mind,  that  you  heard  him  speak  of  the 
Turks?— I  cannot  speak  to  the  date  I  heard  him  speak  of  the  Turks 
because  I  disremember. 

You  disremember  the  dates? — Yes. 

You  cannot  say  was  it  early  or  late? — I  cannot  say. 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

John  Neill 

Was  it  the  time  he  came  with  Father  Nicholson? — Yes. 

It  was  the  time  he  came  with  Father  Nicholson? — Yes,  it  was  on  his 
third  visit. 

Did  he  come  with  Father  Nicholson  more  than  once? — No. 

Did  you  yourself  fix  the  date  of  Father  Nicholson  and  Sir  Roger  Case- 
ment coming  back  to  the  camp  as  the  1st  February,  1915? — I  did  not. 

Do  you  remember  making  the  statement  of  the  evidence  that  you  were 
to  give? — Yes. 

To  whom  did  you  make  the  statement? — To  some  one  at  the  War  Office. 

How  long  ago? — On  27th  May  last. 

Was  it  taken  down  in  writing  in  your  presence? — Yes. 

And  you  signed  it? — Yes. 

Was  it  true? — Well,  there  was  a  lot  of  it;  very  nearly  it  all  was  true. 

Am  I  to  understand  there  was  a  lot  of  it  that  was.  not  true? — You  are 
not  to  understand  there  was  a  lot  of  it  that  was  not  true. 

Was  it  all  true? — Yes,  it  was  all  true.  My  statement  I  gave  there, 
yes,  it  was  all  true,  only  I  did  not  give  them  all  my  statement;  I  forgot 
something,  but  brought  a  lot  of  it  back  to  my  memory  since  then. 

Listen  to  the  statement  that  was  all  true  at  the  time:  "  Casement 
"  came  back  about  the  1st  February,  1915,  and  Father  Nicholson  came  at 
"the  same  time."  Was  that  true? — Yes,  that  was  true. 

About  the  1st  February,  1915? — I  cannot  fix  the  date,  you  know. 

Did  you  fix  the  date? — To  the  best  of  my  opinion  it  was  about  that 
time  he  came  there. 

"  When  Casement  came  back  we  were  marched  up  to  Barrack  No.  41  by 
"  sections,  as  usual,  and  Quinless  told  us  that  Casement  had  told  him  to  tell 
"  us  that  the  Irish  Brigade  was  to  fight  on  the  Western  Front  with  the 
"Germans  against  the  English,  and  next  to  help  the  Turks  against  the 
"  Russians,  and  the  next  was  to  shed  blood  for  our  native  country."  Did 
you  say  that? — Yes. 

Was  that  true? — Yes. 

"  I  saw  Casement  in  the  camp  at  this-  time,  but  he  did  not  speak  to 
me.  I  never  saw  him  again."  Was  that  true? — On  that  previous 
evening  I  did  not  see  him. 

Let  me  give  it  you  again  :  "I  saw  Casement  in  the  camp  at  this 
"time" — this  was  about  the  1st  February,  1915,  when  he  came  back 
with  Father  Nicholson — "  but  he  did  not  speak  to  me.  I  never  saw  him 
"  again."  Is  that  true? — He  did  not  speak  to  me  on  that  evening.  I 
did  not  see  him;  he  went  away  out  of  that  camp  on  that  evening,  but  I 
saw  him  afterwards.  I  did  not  see  him  again  on  that  evening. 

"  I  never  saw  him  again  "f — On  that  evening. 

Was  it  true?  I  will  go  further.  "  I  heard  that  he  gave  an  address 
"  to  the  Munsters  in  their  barracks,  and  that  they  shouted  him  down.  I 
"  could  hear  the  shouting  going  on."  Do  you  not  see  you  are  pointing  the 
fact  that  you  never  saw  him  again,  although  you  heard  he  was  in  a  different 
part  of  the  camp? — On  that  evening  he  did  address  the  Munster  Fusiliers 
in  the  barracks. 

But  you  were  not  there? — I  was  not  in  the  lines. 

You  could  only  hear  shouting? — He  was  a,  free  man  in  Germany, 
and  could  go  about  where  he  liked. 

Follow  me  again ;  I  will  give  you  every  opportunity  of  understanding. 
40 


(C 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  Neill 

Was  it  true,  of  the  1st  February  occasion,  that  lie  came  to  the  camp 
with  Father  Nicholson,  you  saw  him  in  the  camp,  but  he  did  not  speak 
to  you,  and  you  never  saw  him  again? — On  that  evening  I  never  saw 
him  again;  but  he  was  in  the  camp  several  times  afterwards,  and  I  saw 
him  in  the  camp;  I  never  saw  him  again  on  that  evening. 

You  heard  he  gave  an  address  to  the  Munsters,  and  could  hear  the 
shouting  1 — Yes . 

But  you  never  saw  him? — On  that  evening  after. 

Will  you  give  me  the  date  you  next  saw  him? — He  was  in  the  camp 
every  day,  I  might  say. 

But  only  once  with  Father  Nicholson? — Only  once  with  Father 
Nicholson. 

That  was  about  the  1st  February? — Yes. 

Therefore,  assuming  you  put  in  the  words  "  You  never  saw  him 
"  again  that  evening/'  do  not  you  see  that  you  signed  a  solemn  state- 
ment of  your  evidence  against  a  man  to  be  tried  for  his  life,  that  so  far 
as  that  day  was  concerned  he  did  not  speak  ? — He  did  not  speak  to  me  on 
that  day. 

And  that  was  the  only  day  he  was  there  with  Father  Nicholson? — In 
the  camp  himself  and  Father  Nicholson  separated,  going  through  the 
camp. 

I  am  talking  about  days? — Yes. 

If  he  did  not  speak  to  you  that  day,  he  could  not  have  said  anything 
about  the  Turks  or  Russians  or  anything  else? — He  spoke  about  the  Turks 
and  Russians,  and  also  left  orders  with  this  man  that  joined  the  Irish 
Brigade  to  tell  the  Irishmen  that  joined  the  Brigade 

Are  you  telling  us  what  you  heard  him  say,  or  repeating  what  some- 
body else  told  you;  what  is  it? — I  am  telling  you  now  about  him,  what 
he  said. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTOCE — Who  is  "he  "? — Sir  Roger  Casement. 

By  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Was  it  what  he  said  in  your  presence! — In  my 
presence  and  in  the  presence  of  about  fifty  more  of  our  men — that  when 
they  joined  this  Irish  Brigade  they  were  to  go  and  help  the  Turks  against 
the  Russians  on  the  Turkish  frontier,  then  after  that  they  were  to  go  and 
help  the  Germans  against  the  British,  and  then  after  that  they  were  to 
go  and  shed  blood  for  their  own  native  country. 

And  after  that? — He  said  no  more  then.  He  said  that  in  the  presence 
of  my  comrades  and  myself. 

Did  you  tell  us  in  your  direct  examination  that  was  the  day  he  was 
in  camp  with  Father  Nicholson;  did  you  tell  us  that? — There  was  so  much 
uproar  in  this  camp  at  Limburg,  it  was  very  hard  to  remember  all  that 
was  said  in  it. 

Did  you  tell  us  that  that  happened  on  the  day  he  came  back  to  the 
camp  with  Father  Nicholson? — Yes. 

Then  why  did  you  tell  the  gentleman  at  the  War  Office  that  on  that 
day,  though  you  saw  him  in  the  camp,  he  did  not  speak? — It  is  very  hard 
to  remember  everything;  there  were  a  lot  of  things. 

You  told  the  gentleman  at  the  War  Office  that  though  Sir  ^  Roger 
Casement  did  not  speak,  Quinless  did  say  things  on  that  day? — It  is  very 
hard  to  remember  a  lot  of  things,  you  know. 

41 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

John  Neill 

May  you  be  wrong  in  your  recollection? — No;  I  do  not  think  I  am 
wrong  in  my  recollection. 

At  any  time? — Yes. 

Now,  let  us  see  what  happened,  and  the  assurances  given  you  in  his 
speech  that  you  did  hear.  You  heard  him  say  he  was  the  organiser  of 
the  Irish  Volunteers,  did  not  you? — Yes. 

That  he  was  raising  an  Irish  Brigade? — Yes. 

Was  it  in  connection  with  the  Irish  Volunteers? — Yes. 

Did  you  hear  him  say  that  it  had  been  subscribed  for  by  Irish 
Americans  in  America? — Yes. 

And  that  they  were  to  fight  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

To  win  Home  Rule? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  fight  in  Ireland  only? — At  that  time  only  to  fight  in 
Ireland. 

That  was  the  basis  upon  which  they  were  being  recruited? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  that  the  war  was  nearly  over? — No;  he  never  mentioned 
anything  about  the  war  being  nearly  over. 

Did  he  speak  of  what  might  happen  when  the  war  was  over? — Yes. 

When  the  war  was  over,  if  Germany  won,  did  he  say  that  the  Irish 
Brigade  could  easily  be  landed  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say,  if  Germany  lost  the  war,  on  the  other  hand,  they  should 
go  to  America? — Yes. 

So  if  Germany  won,  they  were  to  go  to  Ireland? — Yes. 

And  if  they  lost,  they  were  to  go  to  America? — Yes. 

Was  there  any  mention  of  helping  them  in  America,  whether  they 
could  get  any  money  to  help  along  in  America? — Yes. 

How  much? — From  £10  to  £20. 

If  they  landed  in  America? — Yes. 

Was  that  speech  made  more  than  once  in  your  presence? — Only  once 
in  my  presence. 

Can  you  remember  the  names  of  the  men  who  were  present  and  heard 
it? — I  do  not  remember  the  names  of  all  the  men  who  were  present, 
but  all  the  men  came  from  Hanover ;  the  majority  of  the  men  who  came 
from  Hanover  were  present  at  that  meeting. 

Cronin  is  in  Court  now.  I  ask  that  he  should  stand  up.  (Cronin 
stood  up.) 

CRONIN — I  did  not  come  from  Hanover. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  am  not  accusing  you  of  that.  Will  you  face  the 
witness-box  for  the  purpose  of  the  question? 

(To  witness) — Do  you  know  John  Cronin  here;  did  you  see  him  in 
the  camp? — No,  I  disremember  entirely. 

I  have  given  you  the  names  of  a  number  of  others.  You  did  know 
Michael  O'Connor? — Yes,  Corporal  O'Connor. 

He  has  been  examined.  Did  you  know  John  Robinson? — I  dis- 
remember Robinson. 

Did  you  know  a  man  named  James  Wilson? — I  disremember  him  too. 

I  want  you  to  give  me  the  name  of  a  human  being  who  was  present 
and  heard  this  speech  of  Sir  Roger  Casement  on  the  day  that  Father 
42 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  Neill 

Nicholson  was  there? — There  was  another  one  there,  but  they  are  prisoners 
there  now. 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — How  many  times  do  you 
think  you  saw  Casement  altogether? — I  have  seen  him  a  lot  of  times. 

About  how  many? — I  disremember  how  many  times;  he  was  there 
so  often  in  that  camp. 

How  long  were  you  there? — I  was  there  for  seven  months. 

Was  he  there  at  intervals? — He  was  there  the  first  time  I  landed  at 
Limburg. 

How  many  times — not  exactly,  but  roughly — do  you  think  you  heard 
him  speak? — I  have  heard  him  speak  several  times,  for  every  time  he 
was  in  the  camp  he  was  all  the  time  talking. 

Three,  four,  or  six  times,  or  how  many? — Nearer  forty-six  times. 

I  do  not  know,  but  you  can  tell  us,  was  it  your  habit  to  take  notes 
of  what  he  said,  and  the  dates  he  said  the  various  things  ? — I  cannot  speak 
of  the  datesi  he  said  these  things,  but  every  time  I  saw  him  in  Limburg 
he  was  always  talking  to  the  prisoners  a  lot,  and  when  I  passed  quite 
close  to  him  I  always  heard  him  speaking  of  the  Irish  Brigade. 

Were  you  badly  wounded  there? — Yes,  pretty  bad. 

Were  you  able  to  get  about  a  little? — Yes,  I  was  able  to  wall?:  about. 

When  were  you  first  asked  about  the  dates  on  which  he  had  said 
anything?  Who  first  asked  you  to  say  the  day  or  date  on  which  he  said 
any  particular  thing  ? — This  gentleman  that  came  from  the  War  Office 
and  took  my  statement  about  Sir  Roger  Casement. 

That  was  the  27th  May,  was  it  not? — Yes. 

MICHAEL  HUSSET,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am  a 
labourer  living  at  Curraghane.  I  remember  the  night  of  the  Thursday 
before  Good  Friday.  That  night  I  had  been  seeing  a  friend,  and  I  was 
coming  home  about  half-past  nine  o'clock.  When  I  came  home  about 
half-past  nine  I  noticed  a  light  out  at  sea.  It  was  a  red  light,  and  it 
lasted  for  a  few  seconds;  about  two  seconds.  I  stood  for  a  while  looking 
out  at  sea  at  the  light.  Next  morning  I  went  down  to  the  strand  to  the 
same  place  where  I  was  that  night  and  where  I  had  seen  the  light.  I 
went  there  for  seaweed.  On  going  there  I  saw  a  boat  up  on  the  sand- 
banks, above  high  water.  It  was  at  the  same  place  where  I  had  seen  the 
light.  I  have  seen  that  boat  since;  I  have  seen  it  in  Court  here,  but 
not  in  this  Court.  I  have  not  seen  the  boat  itself,  but  I  have  seen  a  picture 
of  it.  I  have  never  seen  the  boat  itself  again.  I  remember  going  to 
the  police  barracks  at  Ardfert.  There  I  saw  the  boat.  With  regard  to 
the  red  light  I  saw  out  at  sea,  I  think  it  would  be  about  half  a  mile  out 
at  sea  at  the  time  I  saw  it. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  have  no  question. 

The  Court  adjourned. 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Second  Day— Tuesday,  27th  June,  1916. 

Evidence  for  the  Prosecution— continued. 

JOHN  MCCARTHY,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am  a  farmer 
at  Curraghane,  Curragh  Head,  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile  from  the  sea.  At 
the  shore  there  is  a  wild  and  rough  sea.  I  remember  Good  Friday  morning, 
21®t  April,  1916.  I  left  my  house  about  two  o'clock  in  the  morning. 
It  was  dark  then.  When  I  left  my  house  I  went  along  the  shore  towards 
a  well  which  is  over  a  mile  from  my  house.  I  did  not  see  anybody  or 
anything  on  my  way,  nor  did  I  hear  anything.  I  came  the  same  way 
back  a*bout  four  o'clock.  The  tide  was  coming  in  then.  I  noticed 
the  boat  that  I  found ;  it  was  coming  before  the  tide,  and  about  20  or  30 
yards  from  high- water  mark  on  the  shore.  (Shown  exhibit  No.  7.)  That  is 
a  photograph  of  the  boat.  There  were  four  oars  floating  in  the  water, 
and  I  took  them  up.  I  could  not  do  anything  with  the  boat;  I  could  not 
move  it  as  it  was  too  heavy,  and  I  had  to  leave  it  there.  I  stayed  there 
myself  about  three-quarters  of  an  hour,  and  then  I  went  to  the  house  and 
sent  my  little  boy  to  get  a  neighbour,  Pat  Driscoll,  to  help  me  with  the 
boat.  He  and  I  shifted  the  boat  up  a  small  bit,  but  we  could  not  do  much 
as  it  was  too  weighty.  We  got  the  boat  only  a  little  bit  out  of  the 
water.  She  was  full  of  water,  and  we  had  to  wait  till  the  tide  went  down. 
I  found  a  dagger  in  the  boat.  (Shown  exhibit  No.  8.)  That  is  the  dagger 
I  found.  There  was  nothing  else  in  the  boat.  I  found  a  tin  box  on  the 
sand.  (Shown  exhibit  No*.  9.)  That  is  the  tin  box  I  found.  It  was  up 
on  the  bank,  covered  with  earth.  It  was  barely  covered  over.  There 
was  a  little  hole  made  in  the  earth  and  a  little  wash  of  earth  over  it. 
Some  of  the  earth  had  been  washed  away.  The  box  was  hitched  up  with 
strand  cords,  and  I  did  not  open  it.  I  noticed  three  footprints  on  the  sand. 
I  did  not  notice  anything  more.  I  did  not  see  anybody  at  the  time. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORY — The  three  footprints  that  I  saw  were  the  prints 
of  three  men. 

Examination  continued — These  prints  were  going  in  the  direction  of 
my  house  from  the  boat.  I  did  not  notice  whether  or  not  there  were  any 
marks  of  nails  in  the  boots.  I  could  see  the  footmarks 
for  parts  of  the  way,  but  in  other  parts  of  the  way  I  could  not  see 
them.  I  traced  them  for  about  20  or  30  yards  in  the  direction  of 
my  house.  I  could  not  see  whether  they  ended  at  my  house  or  not;  I 
could  not  find  them  near  my  house  at  all.  When  I  was  coming  back  with 
Driscoll,  after  he  had  helped  me  with  the  boat,  I  met  my  little  girl,  who 
is  about  eight  years  of  age.  She  was  playing  with  these  revolvers  that 
I  now  see  in  exhibit  No.  10.  Two  of  them  were  out  of  the  cases,  and 
I  took  them  to  the  house  with  me.  Along  with  the  revolvers-  there  was 
a  sort  of  bag,  which  is  exhibit  No.  11.  I  found  it  where  I  got  the 
revolvers.  I  took  them  to  the  house  with  me,  and  I  sent  Pat  Driscoll  to 
44 


The  Boat  found  by  M'Carthy,  of  Curraghane. 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  M'Carthy 

the  barracks  at  Ardfert.  The  police  came  then,  and  I  gave  these  things 
up  to  them.  They  also  saw  the  boat,  but  I  was  at  the  boat  before  them 
when  they  came  back  to  me.  Coming  back  from  the  shore,  -when  I  had 
seen  the  boat,  I  did  not  see  anything  else,  but  the  pfolice  got  two  bags. 
I  was  there  when  they  found  them.  (Shown  exhibits;  Nos.  12  and  13.) 
These  are  the  bags  they  found.  Th©  boat,  the  oars,  the  bags,  the  tin 
box,  the  dagger,  and  the  pistol®  were  carried  to  the  barracks;  I  had  to 
carry  them  up  in  my  cart  with  a  horse.  I  think  the  police  also  got  some 
life-jackets.  (Shown  exhibit  No*.  14.)  I  wasi  there  when  these  were 
found,  and  they  were  all  carried  to  the  barracks.  The  sea  was  very 
rough  that  morning.  I  did  not  notice  any  footprints  in  my  own  yard. 

Cross-examined   by  Mr.    SULLIVAN — Do  you   usually   get  up    at  two 
o'clock  in  the  morning? — No. 

Or  had  you  been  to  bed  at  all? — Yes. 

Then  you  got  up  this  morning  at  two  o'clock  in  the  morning  1 — Yes. 

What  got  you  up  so  early? — I  went  to  a,  well. 

Thirsty?— No. 

What  brought  you  to  the  well? — Saying  a  few  prayers. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — It  was  Good  Friday  morning,  it  being  a  holv 
well. 

By  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Being  Good  Friday  morning,  did  you  say  it  was1  a 
holy  well? — I  heard  the  old  people  keep  saying  it  was. 

Were  you  ever  saying  your  prayers  at  the  well  before? — No. 

It  is  a  long  way  from  your  house? — Over  a  mile. 

A  dark  night;  a  pretty  dark  night,  was  it  not? — It  was  when  I  was 
leaving. 

You  left  in  the  dark,  having  got  up  at  two  o'clock  in  the  morning  to 
say  prayer®  at  a  well  you  had  never  been  to  before? — Yes. 

What  made  you  do  it  on  this  particular  morning?     All  your  life  you 
had  been  living  at  Curraghane,  had  you  not? — Yes. 

What  urged  you,  was  it  your  conscience,  to  get  up  at  two  o'clock 
in  the  morning? — It  was  to  say  a  few  prayers1. 

Whereabouts  is  the  well?      Would  you  describe  where  in  the  country 
it  is — in  what  direction  ? — It  was  to  the  north  of  my  house  where  I  live. 

What  is  the  name  of  the  well  ? — It  is  an  Irish  well ;  I  could  not  think 
of  it. 

If  it  is  an  Irish  name  you  ought  to  think  of  it  all  the  sooner,  though 
we  are  in  a  strange  country? — I  have  not  the  Irish. 

You  have  not  the  Irish  of  it,   but  whereaboutsi  is  it?       Would  you 
describe  it  to  me?      What  is  the  name  of  the  place  it  is  at? — Ballyprior. 

You  did  not  meet  anybody  at  this  well  at  two  o'clock  in  the  morning  ? — 
No. 

Nobody  else  was  out  on  Good  Friday  morning  at  two  o'clock  saying 
prayers  at  the  holy  well;  is  not  that  so? — That  is  so. 

Nobody  else  was  there? — I  saw  nobody. 

It  was  dark,  and  it  would  be  very  hard  to  see  anybody,  would  it  not?— 
It  was  clearing  for  day  at  that  time. 

You  prayed  at  the  well;  was  it  at  the  well  you  said  your  prayers? — 
Yes. 

For  how  long? — About  half  an  hour. 

45 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

John  M'Carthy 

What  time  was  it  then  when  you  were  thinking  of  going  home  to 
breakfast?  What  time  was  it? — I  could  not  exactly  tell  you;  I  had  no 
time  on  me. 

You  do  not  wear  a  watch? — No. 

You  could  not  tell  what  time  it  was? — No. 

Was  it  daylight  now? — Yes,  it  was  dawn. 

You  did  not  get  home  until  pretty  late  that  morning  ? — I  did  not. 

What  time  was  it  by  the  time  you  got  home? — It  would  be  between 
seven  and  eight  o'clock,  I  should  think. 

I  mean  when  you  got  home  the  first  time;  what  time  was  it  when 
you  got  home  the  first  time  ? — I  would  get  home,  I  suppose,  about  six. 

The  first  time  you  went  home  to  send  the  boy? — I  would  get  home 
before  six  o'clock  or  about  six 

You  had  then  spent  the  whole  of  that  morning  on  the  strand? — Yes. 

Did  any  neighbours  come  around  the  boat? — Yes,  they  did. 

How  many  of  them? — That  I  could  not  tell  you ;  I  did  not  count  them. 

There  are  not  very  many  neighbours  in  that  part  of  the  country? — 
They  were  a  deal  together  when  they  heard  about  the  boat. 

A  number  of  them  assembled  when  they  heard  about  the  boat;  what 
number  of  them  assembled? — I  should  think  it  would  be  about  fifteen 
to  twenty  of  them  there. 

They  were  tramping  up  and  down  all  over  the  place? — Yes. 

And  of  course  by  the  time  the  police  arrived  there  were  the  footprints 
of  about  fifteen  or  twenty  neighbours  and  many  footprints,  there  were  your 
two  trips ;  what  about  the  little  boy  and  the  little  girl ;  did  they  go  down 
near  the  boat? — Yes. 

And  Driecoll,  he  came  down  near  the  boat? — Yes. 

So  there  were  too  many  footprints  to  be  ol  any  use  to  the  police  by 
the  time  the  police  arrived,  ie  not  that  so? — These  footprints  were  there 
before  anybody  came. 

Owing  to  your  piety  on  that  morning  you  were  able  to  see  the  foot- 
prints at  the  first  daylight  that  came  before  anybody  else  was  there;  is 
not  that  so? — Yes. 

MART  GORMAN,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am  a  servant 
at  the  house  of  John  Allman,  Rathoneen.  I  remember  the  morning  of 
Oood  Friday  last,  21st  April.  I  was  about  that  morning  at  4.30,  and 
I  saw  three  strange  men  passing  the  gate.  The  gate  is  in  the  yard. 
They  were  coming  from  the  sea  and  going  towards  Ardfert.  I  was  about 
two  yards  from  them.  The  light  was  bright,  and  I  could  see  what  they 
were  like  then.  One  was  a  tall  man,  another  nearly  as  tall,  and  the  third 
was  a  small  man.  The  tall  man  was  carrying  a  knapsack  across  his 
shoulders  and  a  walking  cane  and  overcoat.  The  other  two  wore  dark 
clothes  too,  and  carried  overcoats.  They  were  walking  quickly.  I  saw 
the  face  of  the  tall  man.  I  saw  Constable  Riley  later  in  the  same  day, 
and  the  tall  man  that  I  had  seen  in  the  morning  was  with  him.  I 
recognised  him.  He  is  in  the  Court  just  now,  and  I  now  point  out  the 
prisoner.  The  yard  in  which  I  was  when  I  saw  this  man  was  about  two 
miles  from  the  sea.  Our  house  is  a  mile  from  the  old  castle  called 
Rathoneen. 
46 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Mary  Gorman 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — At  what  time  was  it  you  saw  the 
three  men  passing  the  gate? — 4.30. 

Half-past  four? — Yes. 

Are  you  usually  out  and  about  at  that  time  of  the  morning? — My  usual 
hour  is  four  o'clock. 

THOMAS  JOHN  HBAKN,  examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I  am  a 
sergeant  in  the  Royal  Irish  Constabulary,  stationed  at  Ardfert.  I 
remember  the  morning  of  21st  April  last.  I  got  a  report  that  day  from 
John  McCarthy.  A  man  named  Driscoll  brought  the  report  to  me  from 
John  McCarthy.  I  went  with  another  constable  to  Curraghane,  and  I  went 
down  to  the  strand.  I  saw  John  McCarthy  and  a  number  of  men  there. 
I  also  saw  a  boat  on  the  strand,  and  I  examined  it.  I  got  the  assistance 
of  the  men,  and  we  pulled  it  on  to  the  sandbanks.  (Shown  exhibit  No.  7.) 
That  is  a  photograph  of  the  boat.  After  we  had  pulled  the  boat  up  to  the 
sandbanks  I  went  with  McCarthy  to  his  house,  and  he  handed  me  a  dagger 
and  three  pistols.  (Shown  exhibits  No®.  8  and  10.)  These  are  the  dagger 
and  pistols.  The  boat  was  a  flat-bottomed,  four-oared  boat,  having  hoods 
at  the  etem  and  stern  about  11  inches  high.  It  was  a  flat-bottomed  boat 
with  a  tank  on  each  side — air  tanks  about  11  feet  long.  The  sides1  were 
made  of  timber.  There  is  a  part  at  the  bow,  and  that  was  made  of  canvas. 
That  is  what  I  mean  by  the  word  "  hood."  There  was  a  small  hood  at  the 
stern  also  of  canvas.  When  McCarthy  handed  me  the  pistols  and  the 
dagger,  he  also  handed  me  a  small  black  satchel,  which  is  exhibit  No.  11 — 
the  one  nearest  to  me  on  the  table. 

I  went  down  with  McCarthy  to  make  a  further  search  for  pistols  where 
the  others  were  found.  I  examined  the  satchel,  and  I  found  in  it  a  flash 
lamp,  portion  of  a  map,  and  twenty  rounds  of  pistol  ammunition.  I  identify 
the  flash  lamp,  the  map,  and  the  twenty  rounds  of  ammunition.  The  map 
seems  to  be  one  of  a  portion  of  the  coast  round  Bray.  The  kind  of  country 
that  we  were  searching  was  a  flat,  deserted  country  covered  with  isand  piles 
or  sandbanks.  I  made  a  further  search,  and  I  found  a  brown  leather  hand- 
bag and  three  life-belts  buried  in  the  sand.  (Shown  exhibits  Noe.  13  and 
14.)  These  are  the  brown  handbag  and  the  life-belts.  The  constable  who 
was  with  me  found  a  large  black  bag,  which  I  now  identify  as  exhibit  No.  12. 
I  brought  the  bags  into  McCarthy's  house  and  searched  them.  In  the 
brown  leather  bag  I  found  a  flash  lamp  and  twenty  rounds  of  ammunition, 
and  there  were  also  some  maps,  but  I  am  not  able  to  say  exactly  which 
maps  they  were.  They  are  some  of  the  maps  which  are  in  my  hand  just 
now.  There  are  no  maps  in  the  bag  now.  I  sent  McCarthy  to  the  strand, 
and  he  brought  back  a  tin  box  with  him  (exhibit  No.  9).  I  examined  the 
contents  of  the  tin  box,  and  I  found  900  rounds  of  pistol  ammunition  in  it. 
I  examined  the  three  pistols,  and  they  were  loaded.  I  got  McCarthy's  horse 
and  cart,  and  put  all  these  things  on  the  cart,  and  then  I  went  to  the 
strand  and  put  the  boat  on  the  cart  there,  and  it  was  taken  off  to  the 
police  station. 

On  the  way  to  the  police  station  I  met  Constable  Macklin,  and  I  had 
a  conversation  with  him.  I  left  him  with  the  horse  and  cart,  and  I  cycled 
back  to  the  barracks  myself.  I  took  Constable  Riley  along  with  me.  Riley 
and  I  took  our  carbines  with  us,  loaded  them,  and  went  and  searched  the 

47 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Thomas  J.  Hearn 

country.  We  found  a  man  at  a  place  called  M'Kenna's  Fort.  It  is  a  circular 
Irish  ruin,  with  a  trench  all  round  it  varying  from  9  to  14:  feet  deep.  It 
is  all  covered  with  brushwood.  In  the  fort  I  saw  the  prisoner  who  is  now  in 
the  dock.  I  found  him  at  1.20  in  the  afternoon.  I  spoke  to  him  and  asked 
him  what  he  was  doing  there.  He  replied,  "  By  what  authority  do  you 
"  ask  me  the  question,  and  am  I  bound  to  answer  you?  "  I  then  said  that 
I  would  ask  him  any  question  I  wished,  and  he  was  bound  to  answer  me, 
and,  if  he  did  not,  I  would  arrest  him  under  the  Defence  of  the  Realm  Regu- 
lations. I  asked  him  his  name,  and  he  replied  "  Richard  Morton,  Denham, 
Bucks."  I  asked  him  what  was  hie  occupation,  and  he  said  he  was  an 
author.  I  asked  him  to  give  me  the  name  of  some  book  he  had  written,  and 
he  said  he  had  written  a  book  on  the  life  of  St.  Brendon.  I  asked  him  what 
port  he  arrived  at  in  Ireland,  and  he  said  Dublin.  He  also  said  that  he  came 
to  County  Kerry  and  went  to  Mount  Brandon,  and  had  come  from  Mount 
Brandon  to  the  fort  where  I  had  found  him.  He  said  he  arrived  there  at 
8  o'clock  in  the  morning — Good  Friday  morning,  21st  April.  I  asked  him 
if  he  had  any  passport  or  papers  about  him,  and  he  said  he  had  none.  I 
asked  him  where  h'e  was  going  to,  and  he  said  he  intended  to  go  to  Tralee. 
I  have  told  the  Court  the  whole  of  the  conversation  that  passed  at  that 
time.  I  noticed  that  the  lower  portion  of  his  pants  was  wet,  and  that  there 
was  sea  sand  on  his  boots.  I  took  him  away  then  to  bring  him  to  the  police 
station  on  to  the  public  road,  and  as  I  came  to  the  public  road  I  met  a  little 
boy  named  Martin  Collins.  He  had  a  pony  and  trap.  I  got  him  into  the 
trap  with  Constable  Riley,  and  I  sent  Riley  with  him  to  the  house  of  Mary 
Gorman,  and  I  followed  on  foot.  I  was  not  with  them  when  they  saw 
Mary  Gorman.  I  remained  on  the  road  till  Riley  returned  with  the  prisoner, 
and  when  he  came  back  I  took  him  to  the  police  station.  From  the  police 
station  he  was  taken  to  Tralee.  After  bringing  him  to  the  police  station 
I  searched  him  and  charged  him  with  being  concerned  with  the  landing  of 
arms  on  the  coast  of  Ireland.  I  cautioned  him,  and  he  replied,  "  Can  I 
"see  a  lawyer?" 

On  searching  him  I  found  five  sovereigns  and  eleven  shillings. 
Constable  Riley  helped  me  to  search  him.  I  did  not  see  Riley  taking  any- 
thing from  his  pockets;  I  was  not  present  on  the  occasion.  In  the  black 
bag  I  found  a  large  flag,  a  green  and  yellow  flag,  with  a  representation  of 
a  castle  in  the  centre  and  some  foreign  language  underneath.  I  now 
identify  the  flag  that  I  found  in  the  black  bag.  In  the  black  bag  I  also 
found  a  pair  of  field  glasses,  a  flash  lamp,  40  rounds  of  ammunition,  and 
some  wearing  apparel.  I  found  a  number  of  maps  also  in  the  black  bag. 
These  were  the  remainder  of  the  maps  I  had  in  my  hands  just  now.  I 
found  a  piece  of  paper  attached  to  one  of  the  maps.  (Shown  exhibit  No. 
17.)  That  is  the  piece  of  paper  that  was  found  attached  to  the  maps. 
The  paper  found  in  the  black  bag  seems  to  be  a  kind  of  diary,  and  it 
begins,  "  February  16,  left  Cork,  arrived  Dublin  12  p.m., 
February  19,  Mary  Mac.  F.  left  Dublin,  February  23  she  went 
"  to  Cork,  February  23,  Murray  to  Castle,  referred  H.J.S.  26th,  ill  in 
"  bed;  26th,  left  Dublin;  27th,  ill  there,"  and  a  number  of  further  entries, 
ending  up  with  entries  on  April  7th,  "  agreed  at  last,  7  p.m. ;  8th  again." 
Then  it  looks  like  Hevesham,  I  think,  and  then  "  llth  April,  left  Dublin 
"for  Wicklow;  12th  April,  left  Wicklow  in  Willie's  yacht."  I  found  that 
48 


L 


Part  of  the  Diary,  -with  disguised,  names  and  places. 
(Page  l.) 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Thomas  J.  Hearn 

in  the  bag.  I  have  looked  through  those  maps  which  were  found  in  the 
black  bag,  and  the  remainder  in  the  brown  bag.  I  afterwards  made  a 
further  search  at  the  fort,  and  I  found  a  portion  of  a  lunch  similar  to  what 
was  found  in  the  black  bag.  The  lunch  was  rolled  up  in  paper.  (Shown 
exhibit  No.  5.)  I  cannot  say  whether  that  was  the  paper  in  which  the 
lunch  was  wrapped ;  it  was  not  I  who  found  that  paper. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — How  long  were  you  stationed  at 
Ardfert? — Seven  years. 

That  is  from  1909?— Yes. 

With  regard  to  this  place  that  you  found  Sir  Roger  Casement,  it  is 
spoken  of  as  a  fort? — Yes. 

It  is  not  a  fort  as  we  understand  it  in  the  present  day? — No. 

It  is  one  of  those  old  ruins? — An  old  Danish  ruin. 

Perhaps  a  couple  of  thousand  years  old? — Yes. 

Sir  Roger  was  unarmed? — Yes,  he  was. 

He  had  no  offensive  weapons  of  any  kind? — No. 

Or  defensive  weapons? — No. 

At  all  events,  he  was  not  in  the  fort  for  any  martial  purpose  as  far 
as  you  could  see;  is  not  that  clear? — I  cannot  say  that. 

When  you  arrested  him  did  he  ask  you,  or  when  you  cautioned  him 
did  he  ask  you,  whether  he  oould  have  the  services  of  a  lawyer? — He  did. 

And  did  you  answer  him  that  he  would  enjoy  all  the  privileges  of  the 
British  Constitution? — No. 

What  did  you  say  to  him? — I  said,  of  course,  he  could  have  a  lawyer. 

You  did  not  refer  to  the  British  Constitution? — No. 

You  have  suggested,  I  think,  that  Sir  Roger  Casement  was  hiding  in 
the  fort;  in  what  portion  of  the  fort  was  he? — He  was  at  the  furthest  end 
of  the  fort  from  the  main  road;  the  fort  is  98  yards  off  the  public  road, 
and  he  was  at  the  further  end  of  it. 

Could  not  you  see  him? — No,  I  could  not  see  him,  not  till  we  got  into 
the  fort. 

That  is  to  say,  he  was  in  the  centre  of  the  circle? — No,  he  was  outside, 
sitting  in  the  trench,  outside  the  ring  of  the  fort. 

Ouiisiide  the  ring  of  the  fort? — Yes. 

You  eventually  arrested  him,  and  charged  him,  you  say,  with  landing 
arms? — Yes. 

Do  you  remember,  in  1914,  before  the  war,  the  Arms  Proclamation? — 
Yes. 

As  an  officer  of  the  constabulary,  were  you  concerned  in  acting  under 
it  for  a  while? — Yes. 

Prior  to  that  had  there  been  considerable  importation  of  arms? — Yes. 

As  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  in  the  country,  was  there,  prior 
to  that,  a  very  large  importation  of  arms  in  the  north  of  Ireland? — Yes. 

Was  it  in  consequence  of  what  happened  in  the  north  of  Ireland  that 
the  people  were  arming  so  far  south  as  Tralee  ? — I  could  not  say  that. 

Did  they,  at  all  events,  purport  to  be  arming? — They  did. 

As  against  the  armed  person  in  the  north  of  Ireland? — Yes. 

Were  they  bearing  arms  openly? — They  were. 

Without  interference  by  the  public  authorities? — Yes. 
E  49 


Sir  Roger  Casement, 


Thomas  J.  Hearn 


And  actually  on  the  outbreak  of  war  was  the  proclamation  against 
the  importation  of  arms  withdrawn  on  the  16th  August? — Ye®,  that  is  so. 

And  your  directions,  even  so  far  as  they  went  to  interfere  with  the 
importation  of  arms,  ceased  on  the  16th  August  on  the  withdrawal  of  the 
proclamation  for  the  time  being? — Yes. 

And  the  arming  of  the  population  went  on  then  unrestricted  for  a 
while?— Yes. 

And  the  parade  of  arms  uninterfered  with  by  any  authority? — Yes. 

People  drilling? — Yes. 

Marching  ? — Yes . 

Skirmishing  through  the  country? — Yes. 

Without  any  action  taken  on  behalf  of  the  police.  This  arming,  of 
course,  commenced  before  the  war,  did  it  not? — Yes,  it  did. 

It  commenced  some  time  in  1913  in  the  south,  did  it  not? — Yes. 

It  had  commenced  earlier  in  the  north? — Yes. 

Was  there  a  great  deal  of  excitement  in  the  south  with  regard  to  the 
reports  of  what  was  going  on  in  the  north  of  Ireland? — There  was. 

I  suppose  at  the  police  barracks  even  in  Ardfert  they  read  the 
papers  ? — Yes. 

What  papers  did  you  take  in  the  barracks  at  Ardfert? — The  Cork 
Examiner  and  the  Independent. 

I  suppose  you  read  the  speeches  that  were  being  circulated  through 
your  district  by  the  Cork  Examiner  and  the  Independent^ — Yes. 

And  you  took  no  steps  to  prevent  the  circulation  of  the  speeches 
that  appeared  in  those  journals? — No. 

They  reported  speeches  urging  armament  on  both  sides,  the  Inde- 
pendent, at  all  events;  they  reported  the  speeches  up  in  the  north  as 
well  as  the  speeches  in  the  south,  did  not  they? — Yes. 

The  LORD  CkiEP  JUSTICE — Are  you  speaking  of  before  or  after  the 
war? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Before  the  war. 

(To  witness) — And  their  circulation  with  these  speeches  you  have  told 
me  was  in  no  wise  hampered  by  the  police  authorities? — No. 

Did  you  notice  in  the  speeches  reported  with  regard  to  the  arming 
in  the  north  of  Ireland  that  the  justification  for  the  arming  in  the  north 
of  Ireland  purported  to  be  that  the  majority  of  members  of  Parliament 
for  English  constituencies  objected  to  the  Home  Rule  Bill;  was  that  put 
forward  in  the  Ulster  speeches? — Yes. 

And  that  although  there  was  a  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons 
in  favour  of  the  bill,  that  its  opponents  in  the  north  were  justified  in 
arming  to  resist  it  because  the  English  members  disapproved  of  it? — Yes. 

And  were  speeches  reported  to  that  effect,  not  only  by  Irishmen  in 
the  north  of  Ireland,  but  were  there  speeches  to  the  same  effect  reported 
as  having  been  delivered  by  distinguished  Englishmen  from  English  con- 
stituencies who  attended  these  great  meetings? — Yes. 

And  did  those  speeches  in  your  district  greatly  affect  and  agitate 
the  minds  of  the  people  ? — Well,  not  in  the  locality  where  I  am  stationed. 

Not  in  Ardfert? — No. 

But  in  the  south  generally? — Yes. 
50 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Thomas  J.  Hearn 

Do  you  remember  shortly  before  the  war  broke  out  the  excitement 
in  the  south  being  accentuated  by  what  was  known  as  the  Curragh  inci- 
dent?— Yes. 

By  that  time  the  arming  of  Ireland,  north  and  south,  had  gone 
entirely  beyond  the  control  of  the  police,  had  it  not? — Yes. 

If  there  was  to  be  any  protection  for  the  peaceable  population  from 
that  armed  on  either  side  it  would  lie  with  the  military? — Yes. 

After  the  Curragh  incident  was  not  there  very  grave  unrest  amongst 
the  people  of  the  country  as  to  whether  they  could  trust  that  the  military 
would  protect  them  against  the  Ulster  armed  Volunteers? — It  was  believed 
there  was  not  enough  military  in  the  country  for  their  protection  at  the 
time. 

And  the  Curragh  incident  had  thrown  some  doubt  on  their  willing- 
ness to  act,  had  it  not? — Yes. 

In  that  state  of  affairs,  having  neither  police  nor  military  competent 
to  protect  one,  it  was  left  to  people  in  Ireland  to  protect  themselves,  is 
not  that  the  truth  of  it? — Generally  speaking,  it  is. 

Generally  speaking  that  was  the  truth  of  it.  Now,  as  you  say,  when 
the  war  broke  out  the  Arms  Proclamation  was  withdrawn  and  the  arming 
went  on  as  before? — Yes. 

And  continued  right  up  to  last  month? — Yes. 

Except  so  far  as  hampered  by  the  Defence  of  the  Realm  Regulations? 
—Yes. 

Your  charge  against  Sir  Roger  Casement  was  a  charge  made  under 
the  Defence  of  the  Realm  Regulations? — Yes. 

Although  the  Defence  of  the  Realm  Regulations  may  have  hampered 
the  importation  of  arms,  was  the  drilling  of  armed  men  still  permitted 
to  take  place  without  interference  by  the  civil  authorities? — Yes. 

They  continued  as  before? — They  did. 

Marching,  counter-marching,  and  getting  up  skirmishing  and  sham 
battles  all  over  the  country? — Yes. 

Were  there  frequent  complaints  from  the  civil  population  of  this 
matter  being  tolerated? — Yes. 

And  the  police  were  powerless  to  protect  them  from  it?  Is  not  that 
so? — Yes,  powerless. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE: — To  protect  them  against  what?  I  do  not 
quite  follow. 

By  Mr.  SULLIVAN — These  armed  people  were  tramping  all  over  the 
country  1 — Yes. 

They  marched  on  every  man's  property  as  they  wished? — Yes. 

They  fought  their  sham  battles  in  any  part  of  the  land  they  chose 
for  themselves,  is  not  that  so? — That  is  right. 

And  the  police  were  powerless  to  interfere  with  them? — Yes. 

Do  you  remember  after  the  war  broke  out  that  the  Home  Rule  Bill 
passed  as  we  know;  it  is  in  the  statutes? — Yes. 

But  that  an  Act  of  Parliament  was  passed  suspending  its  coming  into 
operation  ? — Yes. 

That  is  also  in  the  statutes.  Did  that  greatly  accentuate  the  feeling 
of  unrest  in  the  country? — Yes. 

51 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Thomas  J.  Hearn 

Re-examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I  am  not  going  through  all 
this  with  you,  but  is  the  result  of  what  you  said  that  the  country  where 
you  were  stationed  was  at  the  time  seething  with  unrest? — Yes. 

And  that  some  of  the  people  had  arms? — Yes. 

The  landing  of  arms  and  ammunition  from  abroad  in  that  country, 
what  kind  of  effect  would  that  have  had? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  object  to  any  speculative  question;  there  were  some 
arms  landed,  three  pistols  and  900  rounds  of  ammunition. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  took  up  the  subject  which  Mr.  Solicitor 
is  entitled  to  explain. 

By  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — What  effect  would  the  landing  of  a  cargo, 
I  do  not  say  three  pistols,  but  a  cargo  of  arms  and  ammunition  in  that 
country  have  had  upon  the  population? — It  would  have  had  a  very  grave 
effect. 

It  has  been  put  to  you  that  the  people  were  arming  only  against  the 
Ulstermen  from  the  north;  is  that  so? — Partly  against  Ulster  and  partly 
against  conscription. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — You  know  the  place  where  the  boat  was 
found? — Yes. 

You  know  the  place  where  you  say  you  found  Sir  Roger  Casement? — 
Yes. 

Is  the  house  at  which  the  woman  Mary  Gorman  was  a  servant,  John 
Allman's  house,  on  the  way  from  where  the  boat  was  to  where  you  found 
him  in  the  fort? — Oh,  no. 

How  far  out  of  the  way? — From  where  I  found  the  boat  to  where 
I  found  him  in  the  fort  would  be  about  two  English  miles  across  country. 

How  far  out  of  the  route  was  the  house  of  this  man  at  which  Mary 
Gorman  says  she  saw  him  about? — That  would  be  within  480  yards  of  this 
fort. 

The  house  where  she  lived? — Yes. 

BERNARD  RILET,  examined  by  Mr.  BODKIN — I  am  a  constable  in  the 
Royal  Irish  Constabulary,  stationed  at  Ardfert.  I  was  with  Sergeant 
Hearn  on  the  morning  of  21st  April.  I  remember  going  with  him  towards 
Rathoneen  in  the  direction  of  Curraghane.  We  searched  about  in  that 
direction,  and  we  came  to  a  place  which  is  called  M'Kenna's  Fort,  where 
we  saw  a  man.  I  now  identify  that  man  as  the  prisoner.  When  I  first 
saw  him  his  head  and  shoulders  were  appearing  over  some  shrubbery  in 
the  fort.  He  had  not  seen  me;  he  was  looking  in  a  different  direction. 
I  had  my  rifle  with  me.  I  went  in  his  direction,  and  immediately  he 
turned  towards  me  I  put  up  my  carbine  and  covered  him.  I  told  him  to 
stand  where  he  was,  quite  close  to  me;  that  my  rifle  was  loaded,  and  if 
he  moved  a  foot  I  should  shoot  him.  He  said  that  was  a  nice  way  to 
treat  an  English  traveller.  I  cautioned  him,  and  he  said,  "  I  am  not 
"  armed;  I  will  not  do  you  any  harm."  I  called  for  Sergeant  Hearn, 
and  he  came  up  after  a  few  minutes.  There  was  a  conversation  between 
the  sergeant  and  the  prisoner,  and  after  that  the  prisoner  was  taken 
into  custody.  I  took  him  back  to  Allman's  house,  where  Mary  Gorman 
was  employed  as  a  servant.  The  little  boy  Collins  was  driving  a  vehicle 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Bernard  Riley 

towards  Allman's  house,  and  the  prisoner  and  I  had  a  lift  in  his  cart. 
I  saw  Mary  Gorman  and  she  saw  the  prisoner.  We  went  back  again 
from  Mary  Gorman's  on  foot.  When  we  got  some  way  I  saw  Martin 
Collins  again.  Sergeant  Hearn  and  the  prisoner  remained  on  the  public 
road,  and  I  went  inside  to  search  the  fort  for  the  other  two  men  believed 
to  be  there. 

Returning  to  the  public  road,  Martin  Collins  was  there;  he  had  fol- 
lowed us  up.     Martin  Collins  spoke  to  me  on  the  way  to  Ardfert,  and 
he  gave  me  two  pieces  of  paper.     I  put  my  initials  on  them  to  identify 
them.     (Shown   exhibit    No.    18.)     These    are   the   two  pieces   of    paper 
which  Martin  Collins  gave  me.     They  appear  to  be  typewritten  or  partly 
typewritten,  and  against  each  sentence  in  typewriting  there  is  a  number 
put.     On  the  back  of  the  paper  there  is  some  writing  in  pencil  in  the 
English  language.     The  numbers  are  nearly  consecutive — 00611,   00621, 
00631,    00632,   and   so    on,    all   of  them   beginning   with    00,    and    the 
remainder  of  the  figures  are  nearly  consecutive,  though  not  quite.     There 
is    one    number    against    each    sentence.       It    begins    with    sentences. 
The  first  is  :  "  Cease  communications  with.7'     Then  they  go  on :   "  Await 
"further  instructions";  "Await  favourable  opportunity7';   "Agent  has 
"  started  for  ";   "  Agent  will  start  for  ";   "  Agent  is  underways  for  "; 
"Send  agent  at  once";    "Keep   agent   back";    "Call  agent  back"; 
"  Proposal  accepted  ";   "  Proposal  refused  ";   "  Proposal  must  be  recon- 
"  sidered  ";  "  Proposal  not  plainly  enough  explained  ";  "  Please  answer 
'  by  letter  " ;  ' '  Answer  follows  by  letter  "  ;  "  It  is  impossible  to  stay  at" ; 
'  Have  moved  on  for  " ;  "  Have  decided  to  stay,"  and  then  "  Direct  your 
'  attention  on."     In  the  photograph  it  looks  to  be  in  ink  so  as  to  make 
1  j  "    into   "  y  "    by  having  a  little  loop   in   front.     Then    "  Take  up 
'communication    with";     "Nothing    further    is    known";     "Nothing 
'  further  has  been  heard  from  " ;  "  We  have  our  positions  at  " ;  "  Letter 
'  received  " ;  "  Letter  not  received  "  ;  "A  letter  will  follow  "  ;  "  Letters 
'are     not    sure";     "Do    not     send     further    letters";     "  Communi- 
"  cation  again  possible  "  ;  "  Our  chiffre  is  compromised  "  ;  "  Railway  com- 
"  munications  have  been  stopped  ";  "  Enquiries  must  be  made  about  "; 
"  Our  men  are  at ";  "  Further  ammunition  is  needed  " ;  "  Further  rifles 
"are  needed";    "How  many  rifles  will  you  send  us?"    "How  much 
"  ammunition  will  you  send  us?  "  "  Will  send  plan  about  landing  on  "  ; 
"  Await  details  about  sending  on  " ;   "  Preparations  are  made  about"; 
'  We  have  heard  from  "  ;  "  More  detailed  information  is  not  to  be  got  " ; 
'  My  cable  adress  is  " ;   "My  adress  for  letters  is  " ;   "Send  communi- 
'  cations  to  the  adress  of";  "  Give  me  new  adress  for  " ;  "  Last  wire 
'has  not  been  understood";    "Send   another  ship   to";    "Send  rifles 
'and    ammunition    to";     "Cannons    with    plenty    of    ammunition    are 
"needed";   "Send  them  to";  "Send  more  explosives"   "Send  vessel 
"if  possible."     I  have  seen  the  figure  "  7  "  on  the  paper,  and  I  see  a 
little  mark  across  each  down  stroke  of  the  "  7."    That  is  not  an  Irish  way 
of  writing  the  figure  "  7,"  but  it  is  an  Irish  way  of  making  a  capital 
"F."     The  Irish  way   of  writing  the  figure   "7  "    is  the  same  as  the 
English  way  of  writing  the  figure   "7."     I   do  not  write  Irish   myself. 
The  pencil  writing  reads:    "If  any  message  sent,   use  'Clifton  wire7; 

53 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Bernard  Riley 

"  friends  ready  to  receive  our  messages  at  2  a.m.  middle  Greenwich 
"time.  Begin  always  '  Sectpol  '  and  rest  in  our  cipher.  This  holds 
"good  from  22nd  April  till  20th  May.  If  by  then  no  news,  the  friend's 
"  station  will  be  closed  for  good;  after  that  only  by  cable  to  Mr.  Hehlin, 
"  Davos  Village,  Switzerland."  Signed  "  James  Kingsley."  I  see 
some  letters  below  the  words  "James  Kingsley,"  but  I  do  not  know 
whose  handwriting  these  letters  are  in.  They  are  not  mine.  The  last 
one  looks  like  "e"  or  "  c,"  and  the  first  looks  like  "  n."  There  is 
no  place  named  Clifton  in  that  part  of  Ireland  that  I  know  of. 

The  prisoner  was  taken  to  the  police  station  and  was  searched.  I 
took  part  in  that.  In  his  waistcoat  pocket  there  was  exhibit  No.  16.  That 
was  in  the  inside  pocket  of  the  vest  he  was  wearing.  I  looked  at  it,  and 
I  remarked  to  him,  "  This  is  not  Irish,"  meaning  what  was  written  on  it  in 
pencil.  He  said,  "  I  do  not  know,  I  have  never  seen  it  before."  What 
appears  to  be  written  on  it  is  "  Moller,  Hensingfors,  Kroner  34." 

That  day  I  went  back  to  M'Kenna's  Fort,  and  I  found  three  topcoats 
(exhibits  Nos.  19,  20,  and  21).  I  remember  seeing  No.  19  looked  at  and 
searched  through.  There  was  nothing  found  on  it  in  my  presence.  I  first 
saw  exhibit  No.  31,  with  the  district  inspector  at  Tralee,  Mr.  Britten.  On 
27th  April  I  went  back  again  to  the  fort,  and  on  that  occasion  I  found  a 
piece  of  paper  in  the  fort.  (Shown  exhibit  No.  15.)  That  is  the  piece 
of  paper  I  found.  It  has  some  pencil  writing  on  it,  but  I  cannot  read  it; 
it  appears  to  be  in  a  foreign  language.  When  I  arrested  Casement  I 
noticed  that  there  was  some  sand  on  the  green  woollen  muffler  he  was 
wearing,  and  that  the  ends  of  the  muffler  were  slightly  damp  and  wet.  His 
boots  also  had  sand  in  them,  and  all  the  coats  were  quite  wet — sodden. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — You  say  there  is  no  such  place  as 
Clifton  in  that  immediate  neighbourhood? — Not  to  my  knowledge. 

How  long  are  you  stationed  in  Ardfert? — About  six  years. 

Are  you  a  native  of  the  district? — No. 

What  part  of  the  country  do  you  come  from? — I  come  from  Ulster. 

This  place  that  you  searched,  how  long  after  the  arrest  was  it  that 
you  searched  it  for  the  overcoats? — I  should  say  about  an  hour  afterwards, 
say,  between  one  and  two  hours. 

Between  one  and  two  hours  afterwards  you  found  the  overcoats  there. 
Had  you  made  any  search  originally? — Through  the  fort? 

Yes? — Yea,  I  had,  for  men. 

^ou  apparently  had  not  noticed  the  overcoats? — They  passed  my 
notice.  They  were  covered  by  the  shrubbery.  They  were  folded  up  and 
hidden  in  the  shrubbery. 

And  they  escaped  your  notice  in  that  way? — Yes. 

With  regard  to  this  paper  (exhibit  No.  15),  you  have  that  paper  before 
you,  and  you  cannot  find  any  English  word  or  words  that  you  can  recognise 
on  it,  can  you? — Except  my  own  initials. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — There  are  your  initials;  it  was  merely 
for  identification  that  you  put  them  on? — Yes,  my  lord. 

MARTIN    COLLINS,    examined    by    the    SOLICITOR- GENERAL — I    live    at 
Ardfert.     My  father  is-  a  farmer.     I  am  twelve  and  a  half  years  old.     I 
remember  last  Good  Friday  morning.     I  was  going  back  to  my  uncle's 
54 


•*r 

•3t 

:•*; 


'• 


Sentences. 


cease  common icq t i ons  with 
father  instruct  tons 
lag oratil »,  opportun ity 


/or 

underpays  for 
send  agent  at  once 


Wll  etpen    back 

pr^jBOsal  accepted 

proposal  refused  " 

propQajil  must  be  ^re 

jprQ>pQ9al  not  plainly  enough  explained 

please  answer  by  letter 


?iaa  not  6<f#n  me:^e  fifed: 
foil  POM  by  'leiifwl^'r' 
it   is  impossible  to  stay  &t 
.  nvae  Mooed  am  for 
have  deceided  to  stay 


-       . 

take  up  communication  with 

nothing  further  its  "known 

nothing  further  has  been  heard  from 

tee  have  our  positions  at 

letter  received          ^  ^  • 

2#£fier  no*  received 

a  letter  toill  fellow 

letter^  are  not  ahure 

dont  send  further  letters 

communi'cat  i  on  aga  in  p  oss  ibl  e 

our  ohlffr*  is  compromised 
railway  communi  cations  have  been  stopped 
enquieries  must  be  made  about 
an&men  are  at 

further  ammunition   is  needed 
f&ti^'ri  flea  are  needed 
hate  many  rifles  will  ygu  ^9_enA^.tUL' 
hoto  much  ammition  will  you  send  us 
mill  mend,  plan  about  landing  of 
ateatt  details  about  sending  of 
preparations  are  made  about 


detailed  information  is  not  to  >*  IP^I 
*»Jfv  adress  fsr 

/or  letters  "i* 
««*^wl<?a«l«n«  «'».  *^*  agrees 


%,n*»*«a     «r 

f.  has  not  been  undestood 


Part  of  the  Secret  Code  picked  up  by  the  boy,  Martin  Collins. 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Martin  Collins 

place  in  a  pony  and  trap.  I  came  near  a  place  called  M'Kenna's  Fort, 
which  I  know.  I  saw  some  people  there — Constable  Riley,  Sergeant  Hearn, 
and  a  strange  man.  I  have  seen  the  strange  man  since.  Looking  round 
the  Court  I  see  him  there;  he  is  the  prisoner.  I  stopped.  The  police 
were  coming  out  from  the  fort  at  the  time  with  the  strange  man.  As 
the  strange  man  was  crossing  the  fence  he  dropped  some  papers  from  behind 
his  back.  Constable  Riley  asked  me  to  give  him  a  drive  back  as  far  as 
John  Allman's,  my  uncle's,  and  I  did  that.  Constable  Riley  and  the  strange 
man  got  into  my  cart,  and  I  drove  them  back  to  John  Allman's.  I  heard 
Constable  Riley  ask  for  Mary  Gorman,  and  then  he  asked  her  if  the  strange 
man  was  the  man  she  had  seen  in  the  morning,  and  Mary  Gorman  said 
"yes."  I  stayed  at  Allman's  for  half  an  hour.  I  was  going  to  Tralee, 
and  I  stopped  at  the  fort  again,  and  Tom  Doone  went  in  and  picked  up  the 
papers  and  gave  them  to  me,  and  I  gave  them  to  Constable  Riley.  Tom 
Doone  is  a  boy  who  is  younger  than  I  am.  He  found  the  papers  at  the 
place  where  I  saw  the  strange  man  brought  out.  (Shown  exhibit  No.  18.) 
That  is  the  piece  of  paper  I  saw  the  prisoner  drop.  It  was  torn  like  that 
when  I  got  it.  I  looked  at  it,  and  then  I  gave  it  to  Constable  Riley. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Did  you  see  this  boy,  Tom  Doone, 
actually  pick  up  the  paper? — Yes. 

Was  the  paper  lying  there  on  the  ground  in  your  view? — Yes. 

As  you  drove  along  the  road? — Yes. 

You  could  see  the  paper  from  the  trap  as  you  drove  along  the  road, 
could  you? — I  saw  the  strange  man  drop  the  paper. 

Did  you  see  the  paper  on  the  ground  after  he  had  dropped  it? — Yes. 

It  was  visible  from  the  road,  was  it? — Yes. 

Had  you  your  dinner  at  Allman's? — I  had. 

How  long  did  you  remain  there  ? — Half  an  hour. 

You  drove  up  and  saw  Mary  Gorman? — Yes. 

And  heard  this  conversation? — Yes. 

And  had  your  dinner? — Yes. 

And  got  back  in  half  an  hour? — Yes. 

FREDERICK  AMBROSE  BRITTEN,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I 
am  district  inspector  in  the  Royal  Irish  Constabulary.  On  21st  April  I 
saw  three  overcoats  in  the  custody  of  the  police.  One  of  these  is  exhibit 
No.  19,  and  I  took  a  piece  of  paper  from  the  pocket  of  that  coat.  Exhibit 
No.  31  is  the  document  that  I  took  from  the  pocket.  It  is  a  first-class 
sleeping  railway  ticket  from  Berlin  to  Wilhelmshaven,  dated  12th  April, 
1916.  I  know  a  little  German.  I  see  a  number  of  figures  down  the  left- 
hand  side  of  exhibit  No.  18.  I  notice  the  way  in  which  the  figure  7  ia 
made.  I  should  say  that  it  is  very  like  a  German  7.  Exhibit  No.  15  is 
written  in  German  and  in  German  characters. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — What  is  your  headquarters? — 
Tralee. 

How  long  are  you  stationed  in  Tralee? — Five  years. 

I  suppose  you  read  the  papers? — Sometimes. 

What  paper  do  you  read? — Anything  I  can  get  hold  of — the  Irish 
Timts,  the  Independent 

The  Irish  Times  is  the  one  that  you  take  for  preference,  I  think? — Yes. 

55 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Frederick  A.  Britten 


I  want  to  know  whether  you  read  the  Irish  Times  of  14th  July,  1913. 
I  can  give  you  a  copy  to  look  at  (newspaper  handed  to  witness)? — I  could 
not  tell  you. 

Will  you  turn  to  page  8.  Did  you  read  the  account  of  those  speeches 
of  the  July  anniversary  celebration  of  the  12th  July? — No,  I  should  think 
not.  I  do  not  remember  reading  it. 

Will  you  just  glance  through  it.  There  are  some  striking  matters 
in  it.  Will  you  look  at  the  bottom  of  the  second  column  on  that  page, 
about  30  lines  up,  the  passage  beginning — "  I  hope  it  will  never  be  for- 
gotten in  that  context,  as  regards  the  second  reading  of  this  bill  the  other 
day " 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  difficulty  of  it  is,  so  far  the  witness 
has  said  he  has  not  read  it. 

By  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Will  you  look  at  the  passage  commencing  with  those 
words,  and  see  whether 'you  have  not  read  that  before? — I  am  sure  I  read 
something  like  it. 

Will  you  read  it  through  again  and  make  sure  whether  that  is  not 
what  you  did  read  before? — I  could  not  possibly  make  sure  whether  I  read 
it  before  or  not. 

That  is  the  paper  you  usually  read,  and  it  is  circulated  in  the  town  of 
which  you  are  the  district  inspector? — Yes. 

It  was  something  to  this  effect,  at  all  events : — "  I  hope  it  will  not  be 
"  forgotten  in  that  context,  as  regards  the  second  reading  of  this  bill  the 
"  other  day,  there  was  as  regards  England,  the  predominant  partner,  a 
"  majority  upon  the  division  of  over  30  against  the  bill?  " — Yes. 

That  is  against  the  Home  Rule  Bill? — Yes. 

Now,  will  you  look  higher  up  in  that  column,  three  lines  before  the 
cross-heading,  and  see  if  you  do  not  remember  reading  that  before, 
circulating  in  your  district? — I  do  not  quite  know  where  you  mean. 

You  see  "  Confidence  in  "  as  a  sub-heading? — Yes. 

Just  above  that  you  see  a  passage  commencing  "We  can  rely."  Do 
you  remember  reading  something  to  that  effect? — I  remember  reading  that 
sort  of  talk. 

"  We  can  rely  not  only  on  thousands  but  tens  of  thousands  of  people 
"  in  England  who  are  prepared  to  assist  us."  There  was  any  amount  of 
that  sort  of  speaking  going  on? — In  the  papers. 

Some  of  them  were  perhaps  more  definite.  Then  in  the  very  last  para- 
graph of  the  meeting  that  is  reported  there,  do  you  see  a  passage  beginning 
"  In  England  they  were  prepared  to  stand  "  ? — Who  is  speaking,  whose 
speech  is  it? 

I  will  give  you  the  name  if  you  wish,  but  I  am  a  little  diffident  about 
it.  It  is  the  very  last  paragraph  of  the  eloquent  speech  that  closed  the 
meeting  except  the  vote  of  thanks? — There  are  so  many  meetings  in 
different  parts  of  Ireland,  and  they  are  mixed  up  together. 

I  will  mark  the  passage  for  you  if  you  wish  it.  That  is  the  passage 
I  want  you  to  look  at.  Did  you  read  passages  of  this  kind  circulating  in 
your  district — "  They  would  be  right  in  resisting  it  by  force,  and  in  their 
"  determination  to  resist  it  they  would  have  the  sympathy  and  support  of 
"  thousands  of  people  in  England,  and  amongst  those  thousands  he  had 
"the  greatest  pleasure  in  reckoning  himself."  You  remember  speeches 
to  that  effect,  at  all  events  ? — Either  speeches  or  comment  to  that  effect. 
56 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Frederick  A.  Britten 

They  were  circulated  broadcast  through  the  country? — No  doubt. 

(Irish  Times  of  14th  July,  1913,  marked  exhibit  No.  37.)  Now  I  will 
turn  to  the  issue  of  18th  September,  1913.  I  have  marked  two  passages  in 
that  issue.  Have  you  read  that  passage  between  the  parallel  ink  columns, 
"  Sir  Edward  Carson  in  Ulster."  Have  you  read  that  or  speeches  to  that 
effect  about  that  time  circulating? — Yes,  it  is  always  the*  same. 

"  He  could  add  this  as  a  word  of  partial  assurance,  that  they  had  many 
'  powerful  friends  in  England  who  thought  as  he  did.  It  was  all  very  well 
'  to  talk  of  the  great  forces  which,  were  marshalled  behind  the  Government 
*  and  which  could  be  used  in  the  event  of  extreme  necessity  in  Ulster.  The 
'  reply  to  that  was  that  the  forces  of  the  Crown  were  the  servants  of  the 
'  nation,  and  at  least  one-half  of  the  nation  believed  that  the  employ- 
'  ment  of  this  force  would  be  a  monstrous  crime  "  ? — Yes. 

Now,  will  you  turn  to  the  next  page.  I  have  marked  for  you,  "  If  the 
"  resolution  of  Ulster  were  put  to  the  test,  they  would  find  those  in  England 
"  who  had  felt  it  their  duty  to  encourage  the  men  of  Ulster  in  their  attitude, 
"  and  who  would  be  prepared  to  prove  by  their  deeds  that  when  they  said 
"  that  Ulster  was  right  they  meant  Ulster  was  right,  and  who  would  be 
''prepared  to  share  the  risk"? — Yes. 

Then  there  is  one  other  eloquent  passage  I  want  to  deal  with. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Have  we  not  gone  far  enough  into  this? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Very  well,  my  lord,  I  at  once  accept  the  suggestion. 

Re-examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — Were  those  speeches  made 
before  the  war? — Yes. 

There  is  nothing  about  entering  the  service  of  Germany? — No. 

Or  helping  the  Germans  to  invade  Ireland? — No.  (Irish  Times  of 
18th  September,  1913,  marked  exhibit  No.  38.) 

ROBERT  WILLIAM  LARKE,  examined  by  Mr.  BODKIN — I  am  a  constable 
in  the  Royal  Irish  Constabulary  stationed  at  Ardfert.  On  Good  Friday, 
21st  April,  I  went  to  the  sand  at  Curraghane,  and  I  found  a  black  bag.  It 
was  buried  in  the  sand.  There  were  some  things  in  it  when  I  found  it. 
These  were  placed  in  M'Carthy's  cart  and  taken  to  the  barracks. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  have  no  question. 

JAMES  BUTLER,  examined  by  Mr.  BRANSON — I  am  a  sergeant  in  the 
Royal  Irish  Constabulary,  and  on  22nd  April  last  I  conveyed  the  prisoner, 
Sir  Roger  Casement,  from  Tralee  to  Dublin  by  train.  As  the  train  was 
approaching  Killarney  Station  the  prisoner  asked  whether  he  could  have  a 
newspaper,  and  I  said  "yes."  The  train  stopped  at  the  station.  The 
head  constable  of  Killarney  was  at  the  station,  and  he  came  to  the  carriage 
door  where  we  were.  He  said  something  to  me,  and  the  prisoner  heard 
what  he  said.  The  head  constable  said,  "  Did  you  hear  what  happened  to 
"the  two  lads  at  Puck"?  I  said  "No."  The  head  constable  replied, 
"  They  ran  into  the  tide  and  were  drowned."  Puck  is  about  20  miles  from 
Tralee.  Its  proper  name  is  Killorglin.  On  the  train  leaving  the  station 
the  prisoner  commenced  to  sob  and  cry,  and  remained  so  for  some  time. 
He  then  turned  round  to  me  and  asked  me  where  was  Puck;  was  it  near 
Castlemaine  Bay,  and  I  said  it  was.  Then  after  a  while  he  said,  "  I  am 
"very  sorry  for  those  two  men;  they  were  good  Irishmen;  it  was  on  my 

57 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


James  Butler 


"account  they  came  over  here."  I  had  also  some  conversation  with  the 
prisoner  at  Mallow  Station.  When  the  train  arrived  at  Mallow  Station  we 
had  to  change  and  get  into  another  train,  and  during  the  interval  we  were 
waiting  for  it  I  asked  him  had  he  ever  been  to  Mallow  before,  and  he  replied 
and  said  he  knew  the  Blackwater  well.  The  town  of  Mallow  is  built  on  the 
Blackwater.  On  arriving  at  King's  Bridge  Station,  Dublin,  on  the  way  to 
Harbour  Hill  Barracks,  we  both  left  in  a  cab,  and  while  in  the  cab  he  asked 
me,  did  I  think  he  would  be  able  to  get  a  bed  when  he  arrived  at  the 
destination,  and  I  said  I  thought  he  would.  Then  he  said  he  felt  very  tired, 
that  he  had  been  up  twelve  nights. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  place  called  Puck  is  in  fact  the 
town  of  Killorglin? — Yes. 

The  natives  pronounce  it  in  one  syllable? — Quite  so. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  accident  you  are  speaking  about  at  Killorglin 
had  happened  some  days  before,  had  it  not? — On  the  day  before,  I  think. 

But  it  had  happened  at  a  distance  of,  I  suppose,  30  miles,  at  all 
events,  from  Curraghane? — Yes,  about  that,  30  miles. 

The  two  men  in  question  who  were  drowned  are  not  men  whose  names 
we  have  heard  mentioned  in  this  case.  Is  not  that  so? — That  is  so,  but  it 
was  not  known  at  the  time  who  they  were. 

There  is  a  slip  at  Killorglin  where  the  road  runs  down,  and  a  motor 
car  had  run  off  the  slip  into  the  tide,  and  the  two  men  had  got  drowned  ? — 
Yes. 

It  is  not  the  first  time  that  a  motor  car  has  run  off  that  slip  into  the 
water,  but  at  that  time  it  was  not  known  who  the  two  men  were? — It  was 
not  known  at  that  time. 

But,  as  it  afterwards  transpired,  they  were  not  men  that  we  are 
dealing  with  in  the  present  case? — No,  I  do  not  think  so. 

FREDERICK  WHITTAKER,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I  am  a 
sergeant-major  of  the  Military  Provost  Staff  Corps.  I  was  on  duty  on 
Saturday,  22nd  April,  at  the  Harbour  Hill  Barracks,  Dublin,  when  I 
received  the  prisoner  Casement  into  my  custody  from  Sergeant  Butler.  I 
received  at  the  same  time  three  bags  (exhibits  Nos.  11,  12,  and  13)  and 
the  tin  box  (exhibit  No.  9),  and  also  three  overcoats,  which  were  then 
in  a  brown  paper  parcel.  I  handed  over  my  prisoner  to  the  custody  of 
Sergeant  Bracken,  and  the  property  to  Sergeant  O'Donnell,  of  New  Scotland 
Yard. 

Mr.    SULLIVAN — No  question. 

THOMAS  BRACKEN,  examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I  am  a 
sergeant  of  the  Military  Foot  Police,  stationed  at  Ship  Street  Barracks, 
Dublin.  On  22nd  April  I  went  to  the  Military  Detention  Barracks  with  an 
escort,  and  I  received  from  the  sergeantrmajor  in  charge  of  the  barracks 
the  prisoner,  Sir  Roger  Casement.  I  took  him  via  Holyhead  to  Euston 
Station,  London,  arriving  there  on  the  morning  of  the  23rd  April.  I  there 
handed  him  over  to  the  custody  of  the  Metropolitan  Police.  I  brought  over 
some  property  at  the  same  time.  I  did  not  bring  three  bags,  but  I  brought 
some  money  and  a  penknife.  I  handed  the  property  to  the  police  there. 

Mr.    SULLIVAN — No  question. 
58 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Joseph  Sandercock 

JOSEPH  SANDERCOCK,  examined  by  Mr.  BODKIN — I  am  an  inspector  of 
the  Criminal  Investigation  Department,  New  Scotland  Yard.  I  went  on  the 
early  morning  of  23rd  April  to  Euston  Station  and  met  the  prisoner  on 
his  arrival  by  the  Irish  mail.  I  received  him  into  my  custody  from  Sergeant 
Bracken.  On  arriving  at  New  Scotland  Yard  I  told  the  accused  that  I  was 
an  inspector  of  police,  and  that  he  would  be  detained  pending  inquiries 
as  to  a  charge  that  would  be  preferred  against  him  later.  He  said,  "  Do 
"  you  know  who  I  am  "1  I  replied,  "  Yes."  He  added,  "  I  am  Sir  Roger 
"  Casement,  and  the  only  person  to  whom  I  have  disclosed  my  identity  is  a 
"  priest  at  Tralee  in  Ireland."  The  accused  was  about  to  make  a  statement 
when  I  cautioned  him,  and  told  him  that  anything  he  said  would  be  taken 
down  and  used  in  evidence  for  or  against  him  at  hi®  trial.  I  informed  him. 
that  he  would  be  seen  by  responsible  officials  at  10  o'clock  that  day,  to 
which  he  replied,  "  I  have  nothing  further  to  say  now."  Later  on  he 
was  taken  to  Brixton  Prison,  and,  later  on  again,  on  25th  April,  to  the 
Tower  of  London. 

Mr.    SULLIVAN — No  question. 

SYDNEY  RAY  WAGHOBN,  examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I  am 
leading  seaman  on  H.M.S.  "Bluebell."  On  21st  April  last  I  was  leading 
signalman.  I  remember  last  Good  Friday,  21st  April.  I  waa  on  board  the 
"  Bluebell  "  on  that  day,  off  the  south-west  coast  of  Ireland.  I  remember 
on  the  evening  of  that  day  sighting  another  ship.  When  I  sighted  this  other 
ship  we  were  about  90  miles  off  the  south-west  coast  of  Ireland.  I  cannot 
give  the  position  more  closely  than  that.  This  other  ship  was  about  15 
miles  from  us  when  I  first  saw  her.  We  got  nearer  to  her.  She  was 
flying  Norwegian  colours.  They  were  painted  on  each  side — two  forward 
and  two  aft.  I  was  ordered  to  signal  to  her.  I  signalled  her,  asking  her 
name  and  where  she  was  bound,  and  she  replied  "  '  Aud/  bound  for  Genoa. " 
I  gave  her  some  orders ;  I  told  her  we  were  taking  her  to  Queenstown,  and 
I  told  her  that  she  was  to  follow  us.  She  did  not  follow  us — not  at  once — 
and  my  vessel  fired  a  round  across  her  bows.  I  knew  that  Queenstown 
was,  roughly,  138  miles-  from  us  to  the  eastward.  After  we  fired  the  shot 
she  then  followed  us.  We  got  within  3£  miles  of  Queenstown.  There  is  a 
lightship  there  called  Daunt' s  light- vessel.  When  we  got  near  that  light- 
vessel  something  happened;  the  "  Aud "  stopped  her  engines.  The 
"Bluebell"  was  a  cable's  length  from  the  "  Aud "  when  the  "Aud" 
stopped  her  engines.  After  she  stopped  her  engines  I  noticed  a  cloud  of 
white  smoke  issuing  from  the  after-hold  on  the  starboard  side.  She  then 
showed  two  German  naval  ensigns  at  the  masthead.  She  lowered  two  boats, 
and  men  got  into  them  and  pulled  towarda  the  "Bluebell."  The  "Blue- 
bell" fired  a  round  across  the  bows  again.  The  boats  then  put  up  a  flag 
of  truce,  and  the  men  in  the  boats  put  up  their  hands.  They  were  taken 
on  board  the  "  Bluebell."  There  were  twenty-three  altogether.  Twenty  of 
them  were  German  bluejackets,  and  three  were  officers.  Two  of  them  were 
German  naval  officers;  I  could  not  say  for  certain  what  officer  the  third 
one  was.  When  the  men  were  taken  on  board  the  "  Bluebell "  they  were 
placed  under  an  armed  guard.  After  that  the  "Aud"  sank.  The  smoke 
issuing  from  her  side  and  the  sinking  of  the  "  Aud  "  all  happened  in  about 
ten  minutes.  She  sank  about  a  mile  and  a  quarter  south-south-east  from 
the  Daunt  light-vessel. 

59 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Sydney  R.  Waghorn 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — You  were  about  90  miles  from  land 
when  you  first  saw  this  ship? — Yes. 

You  were  138  miles  from  Queenstown? — Yes. 

I  suggest  you  had  the  mizzen  bearing  about  north,  distance  about  80 
miles? — I  do  not  know  anything  about  navigation. 

We  want  to  find  the  spot  on  the  ocean  which  is  90  miles  from  land 
and  138  miles  from  Queenstown.  We  ought  to  be  able  to  find  that,  ought 
we  not?  It  was,  at  all  events,  out  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean? — Yes. 

Did  you  tell  my  lord  just  now  that  you  steered  a  course  east  to  the 
Daunt  Rock  lightship? — No. 

I  thought  you  said  so? 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — He  eaid  Queenstown  was  east. 

By  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Do  you  mean  the  bearing  of  Queenstown  was  due 
east? — No. 

Queenstown  was  to  the  east,  but  obviously  very  far  to  the  north  of 
you  ? — No. 

What  was  the  bearing  of  Queenstown? — Queenstown  lay,  roughly, 
eastward. 

Have  you  any  idea  of  the  lie  of  the  south  coast  of  Ireland? — Yes. 

Are  you  aware  that  you  cannot  steer  due  east  to  Queenstown,  or, 
rather,  to  the  Daunt  Rock ;  you  have  to  go  round  the  Daunt  Rock  before 
you  can  turn  into  Queenstown  with  a  ship  drawing  any  water? — Yes. 

When  you  say  Queenstown  lay  to  the  east  of  you,  do  you  suggest  that 
the  bearing  of  Queenstown  was  east? — I  do  not  suggest  anything  about 
the  bearing.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  navigation  at  all. 

What  hour  of  the  day  was  it  that  you  saw  this  vessel  ? — About  6  o'clock 
in  the  evening. 

At  6  o'clock  in  the  evening  on  the  day  in  question  you  could  form  a 
very  fair  opinion  as  to  what  your  course  was,  could  you  not? — No. 

Can  a  leading  signalman  of  H.M.S.  "  Bluebell"  not  assist  me  in 
telling  me  even  approximately  what  course  was  made  for  Queenstown  after 
you  took  this  ship  the  "  Aud  "  in  charge  ? — I  cannot  tell  you  the  course 
that  was  made  approximately. 

But  when  you  say  it  was  to  the  east  you  mean  as  regards  the  northern 
star  it  would  lie  to  the  east  of  it? — Queenstown  would  lie  to  the  eastward  of 
where  we  first  picked  up  the  vessel. 

But  you  do  not  know  what  the  bearing  of  Queenstown  was? — No. 

You  do  not  know  whether  you  went  to  the  north  or  to  north-east  ? — I 
do  not  know  any  course. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  course? 
— No,  my  lord. 

You  have  not  to  read  the  course? — No. 

By  Mr.  SULLIVAN — But  you  do  know  that  you  were  90  mile®!  from  land? 
— Roughly,  90  miles  from  land. 

And  138  miles,  roughly,  from  the  Daunt  Rock  lightship ?: — Yes. 

JOHN  DEMPSET,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I  am  a  diver 

employed  by  the  Admiralty,  and  I  live  in  County  Cork.       On  10th  May 

last  I  received  instructions  to  go  from  Queenstown  to  the  wreck  of  a  ship. 

The  position  of  the  ship  was  marked  by  a  buoy.      The  ship  was  lying  about 

60 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  Dempsey 

a  mile  and  a  quarter  south-south-east  of  the  Daunt  lightship.  I  was 
lowered  down  to  the  wreck  of  the  ship,  and  when  I  got  to  the  bottom  of 
the  sea  I  found  the  ship  there.  There  were  some  flags  painted  on  the 
ship;  there  was  a  Norwegian  flag  painted  on  the  hull.  I  saw  only  one 
side  of  the  vessel  at  that  time.  I  afterwards  saw  the  other  side  of  the 
ship.  I  could  not  tell  whether  there  was  a  Norwegian  flag  painted  on 
that  side,  as  she  was  lying  right  over  on  that  side.  I  examined  the  ship,  and 
found  a  hole  in  her  on  the  starboard  quarter.  That  hole  was  between  12  and 
14  feet  in  diameter.  On  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  abreast  of  the  hull,  I  saw 
a  lot  of  rifles  and  ammunition  strewn  along  the  bottom.  I  brought  up  with 
me  one  of  the  complete  rifles.  (Shown  exhibit  No.  25.)  That  is  the 
rifle  I  brought  up  ;  the  others  were  the  .same  as  that.  I  saw  a  number  of 
others,  but  the  others  were  older  patterns.  I  also  brought  up  some  broken 
rifle  butts.  Exhibit  No.  26  isi  one  of  them.  I  also  found  and  brought 
up  a  bayonet  case,  exhibit  No.  27.  There  were  plenty  down  there.  I 
also  brought  up  a  cartridge  clip  and  a  cartridge.  I  got  the  cartridge  from 
the  bed  of  the  sea,  lying  by  itself.  The  cartridges  were  scattered  about 
the  bottom  loose  on  the  bed  of  the  sea..  When  I  found  the  cartridge  it 
was  in  the  clip.  There  were  thousands!  of  other  cartridges  there.  That 
would  be  about  eleven  o'clock  on  Wednesday  forenoon.  I  went  down  later 
in  the  day,  but  the  weather  started  to  get  very  rough,  and  I  had  to  give  up 
my  diving  operations. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — No  question. 

Colonel  NICHOLAS  T.  BELAIEW,  examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I 
am  a  member  of  the  Imperial  Russian  Guard.  I  am  a  representative  of 
the  Russian  War  Office,  and  I  am  on  the  Russian  Government  Supply  Com- 
mittee at  India  House.  I  have  examined  the  rifle,  exhibit  No.  25.  That 
particular  rifle  is  a  Russian  army  service  rifle,  manufactured  by  the  Im- 
perial Russian  Tould  in  1905.  The  number  of  it  is  80908.  Exhibit 
No.  27  is  not  a  Russian  scabbard.  I  have  never  seen  such  a  scabbard 
in  the  Russian  service. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  am  not  quite  certain,  but  I  think  I  have 
seen  something  like  this  coming  from  South  America. 

Examination  continued — The  clip  exhibited  is  a  Russian  clip.  The 
cartridge  case  is  like  the  Russian  cartridge  case,  but  there  are  some  small 
differences;  for  instance,  in  this  cartridge  I  do  not  see  at  the  bottom  of 
the  cartridge  any  regular  marking.  At  the  bottom  of  the  cartridge  case 
we  used  to  have  some  markings,  the  date  of  manufacture,  and  the  name 
of  the  plant  or  works.  I  do  not  see  any  marking  here.  Then  there  is 
also  some  slight  difference  in  the  shape  of  the  cartridge,  and  also  some 
difference  in  the  size  of  the  powder  grains  and  the  charge  of  the  cartridge 
case.  That  being  so  I  do  not  think  that  the  cartridge  was  made  at  the 
Russian  Government  works.  I  am  quite  familiar  with  the  cartridges 
which  are  made  at  the  Russian  Government  works,  and  so  I  can  state 
that  this  cartridge  has  not  been  manufactured  at  the  Russian  Government 
works.  It  is  difficult  to  state  definitely  whether  the  cartridge  would  fit 
the  rifle  which  is  exhibited,  because  that  rifle  is  in  a  very  bad  state,  but, 
as  far  as  I  can  judge  from  the  dimensions  of  the  cartridge  case  and  of  the 
rifle,  I  think  that  this  cartridge  can  fit. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  have  no  question. 

61 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Lieut.-Col.  P.  J.  Gordon 

Lieutenant-Colonel  PHILIP  JAMBS  GORDON,  examined  by  Mr.  BODKIN — 
I  am  a  lieutenant-colonel  attached  to  the  Directorate  of  Military  Intelligence 
at  the  War  Office,  Whitehall.  I  ain  familiar  with  the  military  maps 
which  are  in  use  in  the  British  Army.  I  have  seen  maps,  exhibits  23  and 
35.  They  are  portions  of  the  map  of  Ireland.  Putting  the  portions 
together  in  their  proper  order  I  think  one  would  get  a  complete  map  of 
Ireland,  but  I  have  not  actually  put  them  together ;  they  are  cut  into  pieces 
of  different  sizes.  I  should  say  that  there  is  enough  material  to  construct 
from  them  two  complete  maps  of  Ireland.  I  have  examined  the  maps 
carefully.  These  maps  are  a  reproduction  by  some  process,  probably 
heliotypography,  of  a,  photographic  production  of  a  quarter-inch  Ordnance 
Survey  map  of  Ireland.  I  do  not  know  of  any  map  prepared  or  published 
in  this  country  which  resembles  it  in  general  appearance.  It  very  closely 
resembles  the  map  of  middle  Europe,  prepared  by  the  German  Govern- 
ment, in  general  appearance.  It  is  on  the  same  scale,  ^o^VuiF'  an(^  the 
meridians  are  numbered  as  from  Ferro  instead  of  from  Greenwich.  That 
is  also  done  in  the  German  map  of  middle  Europe  on  a  ^o^Vcru"  scale>  and  is 
never  done  in  English  maps.  There  are  some  signs  for  indicating  roads 
which  differ  from  the  Ordnance  methods.  In  the  coloured  portions  of  the 
maps  the  main  roads  are  the  same  as  on  the  Ordnance  Survey  maps,  but 
there  are  additional  roads  with  a  special  conventional  sign  which  do  not 
appear  on  the  Ordnance  Survey  maps.  It  has  been  added.  I  am 
acquainted  with  maps-  which  use  that  conventional  sign;  it  is  a  fairly 
common  conventional  sign  for  a  road  which  is  not  of  the  best  class,  but 
better  than  an  ordinary  cart  track.  It  is  not  used  on  Ordnance  Survey 
maps.  I  notice  certain  colouring  on  that  map.  The  green  patches  on 
the  map,  indicating  woods,  are  not  exactly  the  same  as  on  the  Ordnance 
Survey  map ;  they  appear  to  have  been  put  in  from  some  special  informa- 
tion. On  several  of  the  sheets,  on  which  garrison  towns  appear,  there  are 
certain  conventional  signs  which  do  not  appear  on  our  maps.  I  do  not 
know  exactly  what  they  are,  but  they  apparently  refer  to  the  defences  of 
these  garrisons.  There  are  some  patches;  of  colour  used  in  connection  with 
such  towns.  They  are  the  conventional  signs  to  which  I  refer,  and  they 
only  appear  at  the  garrisons. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — There  are  patches  of  colour  which  indicate 
the  land  near  towns.  Every  symbol  on  a  map  is  what  we  call  a  conventional 
sign  or  symbol.  The  green  patches  are  only  shown  on  towns  where  there 
are  garrisons.  The  other  towns  have  no  special  conventional  sign. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that 
these  green  patches  are  anything  special?  They  do  not  represent  towns, 
do  they  ? — They  do  not  represent  towns ;  they  represent  certain  areas  about 
towns. 

All  these  green  patches? — Not  all  the  green  ones,  the  ones  in  vivid 
green,  emerald  green;  and  those  in  duller  green  represent  woods. 

What? — The  patches  of  bright  emerald  green  are  the  ones  near 
defended  towns,  garrisons ;  the  small,  dull,  olive  green  patches  represent 
woods. 

Look  at  Sligo.     (Map  handed  to  witness.)      You  will  not  tell  me  that 
€ollooney  is  a,  garrison  town.       Could  you  get  a  more  brilliant  green  than 
62 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Lieut.-Col.  P.  J.  Gordon 

decorates   Collooney? — The  only  patches  on  this   map  in   green  indicate 
woods. 

What  I  wish  to  point  out  to  you  is  that  Collooney  has  got  the  bright 
green  you  have  just  been  speaking  of.  That  you  say  represents  a  wood 
around  Collooney? — It  is  not  exactly  the  same. 

Is  Limerick  a  garrison  town? — No,  not  a  defended  port.  It  is  not 
what  we  understand  by  a  garrison  town. 

Limerick  is  not  a  garrison  town  in  what  sense?  It  is  a  town  with  a 
garrison,  is  it  not? — It  is  a  garrison  town,  but  by  garrison  we  understand  a 
defended  port. 

Is  not  the  term  "garrison  town"  usually  applied  to  a  town  that  is 
well  equipped  with  barracks,  and  at  which  large  bodies  of  soldiers  are 
stationed  ? — Yes,  a  town  in  which  there  are  barracks  and  bodies  of  soldiers. 

Do  you  know  the  town  of  Limerick  ? — I  have  never  been  there.  I  have 
never  been  in  Ireland. 

Will  you  take  that  bit  of  the  map  which  represents  Lough  Swilly? 
There  are  not  five  garrison  towns  on  Lough  Swilly,  are  there? — Certainly 
not. 

Are  there  five  of  your  green  patches  marked  all  along  Lough  Swilly? — 
Those  green  patches'  do  not  represent  garrison  towns.  As  I  say,  it  is  only 
conjecture  on  my  part. 

If  they  represent  garrison  towns,  does  not  that  represent  that  Lough 
Swilly  has  at  least  five  of  them  dotted  all  along  it? — They  do  not  represent 
garrison  towns. 

Then  may  I  take  it  that  it  is)  pure  speculation  on  your  part  as  to  what 
these  green  circles  do  represent? — It  is.  I  have  said  that  already. 

Do  you  see  by  that  map  that  on  Lough  Swilly  where  there  are  no 
towns  at  all,  in  a.  lonely  country,  there  are  five  circles  ? — Seven  altogether. 

There  are  seven  circles  dotted  all  along  Lough  Swilly  where  there  are 
no  towns  of  any  kind,  sort,  or  description? — I  am  merely  suggesting  that 
they  represent  certain  defended  areas  in  the  neighbourhood  of  garrisons. 

Will  you  tell  me,  looking  at  these  seven  patches  on  Lough  Swilly — 
you  see  where  Lough  Swilly  runs? — Yes. 

If  you  are  not  giving  away  any  secret,  will  you  tell  me  what  is  the 
nearest  garrison  town  of  any  kind  to  Lough  Swilly?  Would  it  not  be 
'Derry  ? — I  would  not  be  referring  to  garrison  towns  at  all,  only  to  garrisons. 

Do  you  suggest  to  my  lords  that  there  are  seven  stations  on  Lough 
Swilly  with  garrisons  in  them? — This  map  has  not  been  prepared  in  this 
country. 

Is  not  your  answer,  that  you  do  not  know  what  those  seven  patches 
on  Lough  Swilly  represent? — I  have  already  said  several  times  it  is  con- 
jecture. 

Re-examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — To  make  it  quite  clear,  what 
do  you  mean  by  the  word  ' '  garrison  "  ? — Probably  "  defended  port  "  would 
be  a  better  word  to  use. 

Have  you  looked  at  the  places  where  these  bright  green  patches  are 
on  the  maps? — Yes. 

Are  there  at  or  near  those  places  garrisons  in  the  sense  in  which  you 
use  the  word  ? — That  does  not  come  into  my  department. 

63 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Maurice  Moriarty 

MAURICE  MORIARTY,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I  live  at 
Tralee,  and  I  drive  a  motor  car  for  Mr.  Nolan.  I  remember  last  Good 
Friday.  I  drove  Mr.  Nolan's  motor  on  that  day.  I  started  about 
eleven  o'clock,  and  I  got  one  passenger  at  Rock  Street  and  two  at 
Balloonough.  Rock  Street  is  a  street  in  Tralee,  and  I  picked  up  one 
passenger  there.  I  took  up  the  two  others  in  Tralee.  Ballyheige  isi  ten 
miles  from  Tralee.  That  road  takes  us  through  Ardfert.  I  drove 
through  Ardfert.  I  gave  some  evidence  at  Bow  Street  Police  Court  in 
London.  I  saw  at  Bow  Street  Police  Court  one  of  the  persons  who  had 
been  in  my  car  on  that  day.  He  gave  his  name  to  the  police  as  Mulcahy, 
but  his  right  name  is  Bailey.*  He  was  in  the  dock  when  I  saw  him  at 
Bow  Street.  I  drove  these  persons  to  Ballyheige.  After  we  drive 
through  Ardfert  the  road  takes  one  near  to  the  sea,  to  a  place  called 
Banner  Strand.  Banner  Strand  is  near  Curraghane.  I  got  about  300 
yards  from  the  sea  when  the  tyre  burst.  A  police  sergeant  came  up  to 
see  the  oar  then.  After  that  I  drove  those  three  persons  on  to  Ballyheige, 
and  then  to  Causeway,  about  six  miles  from  Ballyheige.  I  then  took  them 
through  Abbeydorney  back  to  Tralee. 

Mr.   SULLIVAN — No  question. 

GEORGE  CARTER,  examined  by  Mr.  BODKIN — I  am  a  constable  in  the 
Royal  Irish  Constabulary.  On  Saturday,  22nd  April,  I  was  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Curraghane,  near  Abbeydorney.  That  is  not  very  far 
from  Ardfert — three  or  four  miles.  I  saw  there  a  man,  whom  I  afterwards 
took  into  custody.  I  afterwards  saw  that  same  man  at  Bow  Street  Police 
Court  in  London.  He  was  then  in  the  dock  standing  beside  the  prisoner, 
Sir  Roger  Casement.  His  name  was  Bailey. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — No>  question. 

DANIEL  O'DONNELL,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I  am  a 
detective-inspector  at  New  Scotland  Yard.  On  28th  April  I  went  over  to 
Dublin,  and  on  6th  May  I  went  to  the  Royal  Irish  Constabulary  Depot  at 
Phoenix  Park.  A  man,  whose  name  was  afterwards  given  as  Bailey,  was 
handed  over  to  my  custody,  and  I  brought  that  man  over  to  London. 
While  he  was  in  Dublin  that  man  was  seen  by  some  of  the  soldiers 
who.  ha.ve  given  evidence  in  this  case.  He  is  the  same  person. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — No  question. 

EDWARD  PARKER,  examined  by  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I  am  an 
inspector  of  the  Metropolitan  Police  on  duty  at  New  Scotland  Yard.  On 
the  morning  of  15th  May  I  went  with  other  officers  to  the  Tower  of  London, 
where  I  saw  the  accused,  Sir  Roger  Casement.  I  spoke  to  him,  and  said, 
"  I  am  a  police  officer,  and  have  a  warrant  for  the  arrest  of  Sir  Roger 
"Casement;  are  you  Sir  Roger  Casement?"  He  replied  "Yes."  I 
then  read  through  a  copy  of  a  birth  certificate  I  had  in  my  hand,  and 
asked  him  if  he  was  born  on  1st  September,  1864,  in  the  district  of 
Kingstown,  County  Dublin,  and  he  replied,  "Yes."  I  said,  "Was  your 
"  father  Roger  Casement  and  your  mother  Annie  Casement?  Was  your 
"father  a  captain  in  the  Antrim  Militia?"  and  he  replied,  "Yes."  I 

*  See  Appendix  for  the   very  interesting   statement  made   by   Bailey,   taken  by 
Inspector  Britten  at  Abbeydorney  on  23rd  April,   1916. 
64 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Edward  Parker 

then  read  the  warrant  to  him,  and  he  made  no  reply.  Exhibit  1  is  the 
warrant  that  I  read  to  him.  I  took  Casement  to  Bow  Street  Police  Station, 
where  he  was  subsequently  charged.  After  he  was  charged  he  said, 
"  Am  I  allowed  to  say  anything  now?  "  He  was  cautioned  that  if  he  did 
it  would  be  taken  down  and  used  in  evidence,  and  he  then  said,  pointing 
to  Bailey,  who  was  charged  with  him,  ' '  Well,  that  man  is  innocent.  I 
"  think  the  indictment  is  wrongly  drawn  up  against  him.  If  it  is  within 
"  my  power  to  provide  defence  for  the  man  I  wish  him  to  be  in  every 
' '  way  as  well  defended  as  myself,  and  if  he  has  no  means  to  obtain  hisi 
"  defence,  I  am  prepared  to  obtain  them  for  him."  I  produce  the  London 
Gazette  of  5th  August,  1914,  exhibit  3.  That  is  the  Gazette  containing 
the  official  announcement  of  the  declaration  of  war  with  Germany. 
Mr.  SULLIVAN — No  question. 

WILLIAM  EGAN,  recalled,  further  examined  by  Mr.  BODKIN — I  spoke 
of  having  been  at  school  with  a  man  named  Bailey.  That  man  Bailey  was 
in  the  camp  at  Limburg  asi  a  British  prisoner  of  war.  I  saw  that  same 
man  in  Dublin  on  6th  May  under  a  military  escort.  I  saw  that  same 
man  at  Bow  Street  Police  Court  standing  in  the  dock  beside  the  prisoner, 
Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  SULLIVAN — In  the  camp  at  Limburg 
were  there  French,  Russian,  and  Irish  all  in  the  same  camp? — No. 

Did  not  they  mix  by  day? — They  did  in  working  parties,  when  they 
were  going  to  work. 

What  I  want  to  know  is,  when  you  went  to  the  camp  at  first,  were 
the  French  cooking  for  the  Irish  prisoners? — Yes. 

Do  you  remember  that  the  cooking  for  the  camp  was  done  in  the 
French  camp? — No,  it  was  done  in  our  camp. 

You  say  they  were  not  moving  about  the  camp  freely.  Could  not 
you  visit  the  French  camp? — No,  unless  we  had  a  pass. 

Were  passes  common? — No,  it  was  only  a  privilege. 

The  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I  now  ask  your  lordships  to  rule  with  regard 
to  the  admissibility  of  that  document,  exhibit  No.  4,  the  address  to  the 
Irish  soldiers  which  was  circulated  throughout  the  camp  by  German  soldiers 
or  officers.  I  put  it  in  this  way.  This  document  being  so  circulated,  it 
is  plain  that  the  Germans,  our  enemies,  were  using  means  to  persuade 
Irish  prisoners  of  war  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade,  the  Irish  Brigade  being 
formed  by  the  German  Government,  and  provided  by  that  Government 
with  arms  and  ammunition,  and  so  on.  At  the  same  time  it  is  proved 
that  the  prisoner  does  the  same  thing,  and  eo  he  was  in  that  enterprise 
adhering  to  and  aiding  and  supporting  the  German  authorities.  That  is, 
of  course,  one  of  the  points  which  we  have  to  prove.  I  submit  to  that  end 
this  document  is  admissible  in  evidence  as  showing  what  the  Germans  were 
doing  and  what  Casement  was  helping  them  to  do. 

The  LORD  CarEF  JUSTICE' — What  do  you  say,  Mr.  Sullivan? 

Mr.   SULLIVAN — I   submit  that  the  argument  addressed  to  your  lord- 

!,  and  the  observations  of  the  Solicitor-General,  show  that  he  is 
not  relying  upon  this  document  having  been  brought  to  the  knowledge 
or  attention  of  Sir  Roger  Casement  in  the  course  of  his  visits  to  Limburg. 
Therefore  it  is  a  document  that  is  not  brought  into  contact  with  the 
prisoner  or  under  his  observation ;  and  it  is  not  sought  to  be  admitted  on 
F  65 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 


that  ground.  The  ground  upon  which  it  is  sought  to  be  admitted  is  that 
you  find  other  people  doing  something  similar  to  what  he  was  doing.  On 
the  charge  here,  which  is  not  a  conspiracy  in  any  shape  or  form,  I  respect- 
fully submit  that  whatever  other  people  may  have  been  doing,  or  what- 
ever view  they  may  have  been  taking  a®  to  what  benefit  or  not  they 
might  derive  from  what  he  was  doing,  unless  it  is  alleged  and  proved  that 
it  was  a  conspiracy  between  two  people  to  do  an  act,  which  has  not  been 
alleged,  and  I  submit  is  not  proved,  the  concurrent  similar  acts  of  two 
different  people  are  not  in  themselves  evidence  of  'conspiracy  to  do'  the  same 
act.  In  the  course  of  life  many  people  seek  to  attain  the  same  end 
possibly  for  very  different  reasons.  The  fact  that  you  find  people  seeking 
to*  attain  the  same  end  is  no  evidence,  I  submit — the  mere  concurrence  of 
events — that  they  are  seeking  in  confederacy,  one  with  the  other,  to  do 
the  same  thing,  which  is  the  essential  component  of  the  admissibility  of  a 
document  on  the  ground  that  it  is  uttered  by  the  agent. 

[Their  lordships  conferred.] 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — We  are  of  opinion  that  this  document  is 
admissible.  It  is  clear  upon  the  evidence  as  it  stands,  and  we  have  to 
deal  with  the  case  at  present  upon  the  evidence  as  it  stands,  that  the 
German  officers  and  authorities  were  attempting  to  seduce  the  British 
soldiers  who  were  prisoners  of  war  in  this  camp  from  their  allegiance.  This 
leaflet  was  circulated  and  distributed  amongst  these  prisoners — that  is,  the 
British  prisoners  of  war — who  were  all  said  to  be  Irish  in  this  camp. 
The  prisoner  Casement  had  been  to  the  camp  and  had  made  a  speech  or 
speeches,  and  was;  attempting  to  get  men  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade,  accord- 
ing to  the  evidence  as  given  at  the  moment,  and  he  is  charged  with 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  by  giving  them  aid  and  comfort.  The 
means  by  which  they,  the  German  authorities,  were  seeking  to  assist 
themselves  was  by  getting  these  Irish  prisoners  of  war  to  join  this  Irish 
Brigade  for  the  purpose  stated,  and  the  prisoner  was  doing  the  same  thing 
according  to  the  evidence  as  at  present  given.  In  these  circumstances  it 
seems  to  us  quite  clear  that  this  document,  having  been  distributed  after 
he  (Casement)  had  come  upon  the  scene,  and,  according  to  the  evidence, 
seeking  to  bring  about  the  same  operation  and  the  same  result,  the  evidence 
of  this  document,  exhibit  No.  4,  must  be  admissible  in  evidence  against 
him  on  this  charge.  Therefore  we  admit  it. 

The  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — My  lord,  the  document  has  not  yet  been 
read  to  the  jury.  Perhaps  I  had  better  now  read  it. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Yes. 

The  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — It  is  in  these  terms — ' '  Irishmen  !  Here  is> 
"a  chance  for  you  to  fight  for  Ireland!  You  have  fought  for  England, 
"  your  country's  hereditary  enemy.  You  have  fought  for  Belgium  in 
"  England's  interest,  though  it  was  no  more  to  you  than  the  Fiji  Islands. 
' '  Are  you  willing  to  fight  for  your  own  country  ?  With  a  view  to  securing 
"  the  national  freedom  of  Ireland,  with  the  moral  and  material  assistance 
"  of  the  German  Government,  an  Irish  Brigade  is  being  formed.  ,  The 
"  object  of  the  Irish  Brigade  shall  be  to  fight  solely  the  cause  of  Ireland, 
"  and  under  no  circumstances  shall  it  be  directed  to  any  German  end. 
"  The  Irish  Brigade  shall  be  formed  and  shall  fight  under  the  Irish  flag 
66 


Michael  Francis  Doyle, 

of  the  American  Bar, 
who  assisted  the  defence  in  Court  throughout  the  trial. 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

'  alone;  the  men  ©hall  wear  a  special,  distinctly  Irish  uniform,  and  have 
'  Irish  officers.  The  Irish  Brigade  shall  be  clothed,  fed,  and  efficiently 
'  equipped  with  arms  and  ammunition  by  the  German  Government.  It 
'  will  be  stationed  near  Berlin,  and  be  treated  as  guests  of  the  German 
'  Government.  At  the  end  of  the  war  the  German  Government  under- 
'  takes  to-  send  each  member  of  the  brigade  who  may  so  desire  it  to>  the 
'  United  States  of  America,  with  necessary  means  to  land.  The  Irishmen 
'  in  America  are  collecting  money  for  the  brigade.  Those  men  who  do  not 
1  join  the  Irish  Brigade  will  be  removed  from  Limberg  and  distributed 
'  among  other  camps.  If  interested,  see  your  company  commanders. 
' '  Join  the  Irish  Brigade  and  win  Ireland's  independence !  Remember 
"  Bachelor's  Walk!  God  Save  Ireland!  " 

The  ATTORNEY-GEOSTERAL — That,  my  lords,  is  the  case  for  the  prosecu- 
tion.    There  is  no  statement. 


Motion  to  Quash  Indictment. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — My  lords,  I  intimated  at  another  stage  of  the  case 
that  I  had  considerations  to  address  to  the  Court  on  the  question  of 
whether  the  indictment  to  which  the  prisoner  has  since  pleaded  disclosed 
an  offence  known  to  the  law  and  triable  before  your  lordships.  I  fear 
I  shall  have  to  trespass  on  the  time  of  the  Court  for  some  little  period. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Whatever  time  you  may  require  is  at  your 
disposal.  It  is  essential  that  you  should  have  all  the  time  you  wish. 
Please  do  not  hurry. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — What  I  was  going  to  say  was  a  matter  for  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Court,  that  I  should  probably  occupy,  in  the  debate  of  this 
matter  at  any  rate,  such  a  period  of  the  afternoon  that  I  would  ask  for 
personal  indulgence  that  I  might  not  be  called  upon  to  speak  further 
to  the  evidence,  if  your  lordships  would  .kindly  allow  that. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Certainly. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  indictment  which  your  lordships  have  before 
you  under  the  new  statute  sets  out  the  charge  as  being  "  High  Treason 
te  by  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  elsewhere  than  in  the  King's  realm, 
"  to  wit,  in  the  Empire  of  Germany,  contrary  to  the  Treason  Act,  1351." 
Now,  my  lords,  we  are  all  aware  that  that  statement,  in  the  description 
of  the  offence  as  far  as  I  have  gone,  is  certainly  not  taken  from  the  words 
of  the  statute,  25  Edward  III.  On  the  contrary,  the  words  "  elsewhere 
"  than  in  the  King's  realm,"  so  far  from  following  the  charge  of  adhering 
to  the  King's  enemies  in  the  statute,  are  followed  by  directly  contrary 
words,  "  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  within  his  realm,"  and,  as 
we  all  know,  are  followed  by  the  further  words,  "  giving  them  aid  or 
"  comfort  within  the  realm  or  elsewhere,"  as  it  has  been  translated. 

My  lords,  the  matter  is  not  agitated  for  the  first  time,  but  there 
is  no  case  as  far  as  I  know,  and  my  colleagues,  Mr.  Artemus  Jones,  and 
Mr.  Morgan  especially,  have  assisted  me  in  my  search,  and  have  gone 
through  a  great  number  of  cases — there  is,  as  far  as  I  know,  no  case 
in  which  it  has  ever  been  submitted  to  any  Court,  argued,  and  decided, 
that  a  statute  which  in  terms  commences  by  a  declaration  that  the  offence 

67 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 


shall  be  committed  within  the  realm  has  ever  after  argument  been 
adjudged  to  extend  to  an  offence  outside  the  realm;  no  reported  case, 
at  all  events.  One  case  was  cited  in  a  previous  argument  thirteen  years 
ago  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  as  being  an  authority  that  way  which  I  shall 
have  to  deal  with  at  some  length,  and  I  think  I  shall  prove  to  almost 
mathematical  demonstration  that,  so  far  from  establishing  the  proposi- 
tion for  which  it  was  cited,  it,  in  fact,  was  a  case  of  adhering  to  the 
King's  enemies  in  the  realm  in  the  plainest  of  plain  terms,  not  charged 
in  the  indictment,  but  the  place  lay  within  the  realm  of  England;  and 
from  the  nature  of  the  trial  and  tribunal,  I  hope  to  point  out  to  your 
lordships  that  that  view  must  inevitably  be  taken. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Are  you  referring  to  Vaughan's  case? 
Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  King  v.  Vaughan.  I  hope  to  establish  that  in 
The  King  v.  Vaughan.  The  offence  charged  was  actually  committed 
within  the  realm,  and  was  tried  as  such.  But,  my  lords,  before  I  come 
to  that,  may  I  be  permitted  to  develop  on  an  interior  line?  Treason 
was  a  generic  term  applied  to  a  great  number  of  offences,  all  savouring 
of  breach  of  allegiance  to  His  Majesty  the  King.  The  subject  of  all 
allegiance  itself  falls  under  two  totally  distinct  heads,  allegiance  of  the 
person  and  allegiance  of  the  occupier  of  a  locality,  because,  as  your 
lordships  are  well  aware,  the  occupier,  even  though  he  be  an  alien  enemy, 
a  resident  within  the  realm,  owes  a  local  allegiance,  if  I  may  use  the 
term  in  that  context,  to  His  Majesty  the  King  so  long  as  he  resides  within 
the  King's  peace  and  has  his  protection.  Such  a  local  allegiance  is  it 
that  he,  although  by  birth  and  personality  an  alien  enemy,  may  be 
indicted  and  convicted  of  treason  to  our  Lord  the  King.  That  is  per- 
fectly clear.  May  I  refer  your  lordships  to  the  first  volume  of  Hale, 
page  92  :  "  If  an  alien  army  " — it  is  printed  "  army,"  it  is  obvious  it 
must  be  "  amy,"  an  alien  friend — "  if  an  alien  amy  comes  into  England, 
"  and  here  compass  the  death  of  the  King,  Queen,  or  Prince,  this  is  a 
"  man  compassing  within  thisi  law;  for,  though  he  be  the  natural  subject 
"  of  another  Prince,  yet  during  his  residence  here  he  owes  a  local  allegiance 
"  to  the  King  of  England,  and  though  the  indictment  shall  not  style  him," 
a  natural  born  subject.  It  then  proceeds  to  deal  with  the  form  in 
which  he  may  be  indicted:  "  If  an  alien  amy  subject  of  another  Prince 
"  comes  into  this  Kingdom  and  here  settles  his  abode,  and  afterwards  war 
"  is  proclaimed  between  the  two  Kings,  and  yet  the  alien  continues  here 
"and  takes  the  benefit  of  the  King's  laws  and  protection,  and  yet  com- 
"  passes  the  death  of  the  King,  this  isi  a  man  compassing  within  this  law; 
"  for,  though  he  be  the  natural  subject  of  another  Prince,  he  shall  be 
"  dealt  with  as  an  English  subject  in  this  case,  unless  he  first  openly 
"  remove  himself  from  the  King's  protection  by  passing  to  the  other  Prince, 
"  or  by  a  public  renunciation  of  the  King  of  England's  protection."  We 
are  not  dealing  with  that.  Then  further  he  deals  with  a  merchant  coming 
into  the  realm  and  a  foreigner  residing  and  trading  here  under  the  King's 
protection.  I  do  not  think  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  it  will  be  for  one 
moment  contended  that  a  resident  within  the  kingdom,  although  the 
subject  of  a  foreign  prince,  is  not  bound  by  the  local  allegiance  of  which 
I  speak.  The  importance  of  that  in  considering  the  point  to  which  I  am 
approaching  is  that  a  man  may  in  truth  be  the  subject  of  two  allegiances 


Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

so  long  as  he  is  on  land,  for  he  is  subject  to  the  allegiance  of  his  natural 
prince  and  he  is  subject  to  the  allegiance  of  the  prince  in  whose  dominion 
he  may  be.  When  we  come  to  consider  what  the  statute  of  Edward  III. 
dealt  with,  it  will  be  of  importance,  I  submit,  to  bear  in  mind  that  one 
of  the  reasons  why  Parliament,  or  the  declaration  submitted  to  Parlia- 
ment, contains  the  words  "  within  the  realm  "  was  consciousness  of  the 
fact  that  once  you  went  without  the  realm,  in  the  sense  of  going  into 
the  realm  of  another  prince,  you  were  there  dealing  with  a  man  who 
might  be  in  a  difficult  position,  and  who  was  not  in  the  free  untrammelled 
allegiance  to  a  single  prince  that  His  Majesty's  subjects  within  His 
Majesty's  own  realm  might  be.  That  will  at  once  distinguish  the  position 
of  one  who,  going  outside  the  realm,  namely,  outside  the  four  seas, 
nevertheless  does  not  pass  into  the  realm  or  under  the  allegiance  of 
another  Sovereign.  This  case  is  that  of  a  man  upon  the  high  seas,  the 
natural  born  subject  on  the  high  seas,  outside  the  four  seas,  which 
I  will  show  to  your  lordships  are  unquestionably,  for  the  purposes  of  the 
construction  of  the  statute,  within  the  realm  of  England,  with  reference 
to  the  cases — the  man  who  passes  on  to  the  high  seas,  it  is  true  that 
he  may  be  without  the  realm — but  I  think  I  will  show  your  lordships 
authority  that  he  is  still  within  the  King's  dominions,  and  under  the 
sole  duty  of  allegiance  to  his  one  Sovereign,  and  under  allegiance  to  nobody 
else,  while  he  is  upon  the  high  seas. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Speaking  generally,  with  reference  to  the 
particular  words  of  the  statute  for  the  moment,  you  are  leaving  the 
words  of  the  statute  and  dealing  with  the  common  law. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — For  the  purposes  of  approaching  the  wording  of  the 
statute. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Is  not  there  authority  for  this  proposition 
that  a  man  without  the  realm  may  be  excused  for  what  would  otherwise 
be  an  act  of  treason  if  he  commits  it  under  terror  of  death?  I  thought 
the  law  had  always  drawn  that  distinction. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  think  the  authority  goes  even  further,  because  the 
man  who  within  the  realm  joins  in  the  levying  of  war  upon  His  Majesty 
is  excused  under  the  doctrine  your  lordship  mentions. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — If  it  is  right  to  say  there  is  authority 
for  the  doctrine  that  I  put  forward  to  you,  it  would  seem  to  indicate 
there  is  the  offence  of  treason  apart  altogether  from  whether  it  is  within 
this  statute  if  it  is  a  breach  of  duty  or  of  allegiance  committed  without 
the  realm. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — For  the  purpose  of  argument  I  may  be  permitted 
to  concede  that,  but  it  would  not  be  treason  within  the  statute. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  another  point. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Nor  would  it  have  been  charged  if  sought  to  allege 
it  against  a  person  in  old  times  under  adhering,  but  of  compassing  the 
death  of  the  King  within  the  earlier  decisions,  that  everything  must 
be  reduced  down  to  that  basis  of  inference,  that  once  you  do  any  act 
of  treason  it  could  be  said  to  be  evidence  of  the  primary  act  of  treason 
which  was  the  compassing  and  imagining  of  the  King's  death.  I  deal 
with  this  as  an  approach  to  the  words  of  the  statute  and  with  reference 

69 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


to  the  cases  cited  purporting  to  be  binding  with  reference  to  this  matter. 
Under  the  statute  your  lordships  will  note  as  an  argument  that  the 
words  of  the  statute  "  within  the  realm  "  meant  within  the  realm; 
there  is  no  procedure.  Procedure  was  the  very  essence  of  common  law 
in  those  days.  You  could  not  find  a  venue  for  the  offence  committed 
outside  the  realm  till  a  period  that  I  will  come  to  when  venue  was  pro- 
vided by  statute.  Your  lordships  will  find  in  the  2  Dyer,  in  the  Third 
Philip  and  Mary,  case  13 Ib,  the  opinion  of  the  judges  there  delivered 
was  that  there  was  no  venue  for  various  treasons  until,  my  lords,  it 
was  provided  by  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII.  Accordingly  it  is,  I  submit, 
abhorrent  to  the  ideas  of  jurisprudence  that  a  statute  should  create  an 
offence  that  could  be  only,  so  to  speak,  in  the  air,  that  a  man  could  be 
a  criminal  by  statute,  and  yet  there  would  be  no  means,  on  the  con- 
struction of  the  statute  which  made  him  criminal,  of  determining  what 
should  be  done  with  him  for  the  crime  that  he  had  committed;  and  if  as 
late  as  the  reign  of  Philip  and  Mary  the  opinion  of  the  judges  was  to 
this  effect,  and  it  was  only  cured  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  your 
lordships  will  have  all  that  long  period  of  time  between  the  "passing  of 
the  Act  of  Edward  and  the  passing  of  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII. ,  in 
which  on  the  construction  sought  by  the  Crown  there  were  crimes  of 
which  there  was  no  Court  to  take  cognisance.  The  mistake  with  regard 
to  this  matter,  for  I  submit  there  has  been  a  mistake,  originates  with 
the  writings  of  Coke.  So  far  as  the  research  of  my  colleagues  can 
go,  they  can  find  no  earlier  authorities;  but  when  you  come  to  deal 
with  Lord  Coke's  writings  your  lordships  will  find  that  this  part  of  the 
Third  Institute  dealing  with  the  subject,  in  which  the  statement  is  made 
in  plain  terms,  does  not  purport  to  be  a  portion  of  his  speculative 
writings,  on  which  Stephen  comments  so  bitterly,  but  purports  to  be 
an  exposition  of  the  result  of  the  investigation  of  the  authorities  which 
he  cites  as  supporting  him  in  his  contentions.  At  the  bottom  of  page  10  of 
the  Third  Institute  your  lordships  will  find  in  the  marginal  note  at  the  bottom 
Adherent."  This  is  here  explained,  viz.,  "  in  giving  aid  and  comfort 
to  the  King's  enemies  within  the  realm  or  without,  delivery  or  surrender 
of  the  King's  castles  or  forts  by  the  King's  captain  thereof  to  the  King's 
enemies  within  the  realm  or  without  for  reward,  &c.,  is  adhering  to  the 
King's  enemy,  and  consequently  treason  declared  by  this  Act."  His 
references  are  interesting  because  they  have  nothing  whatever  to  say  to 
the  proposition  which  he  so  boldly  states,  and,  as  far  as  we  can  discover, 
states  for  the  first  time,  that  adhering  within  the  realm  means  adhering 
within  the  realm  or  without.  The  first  reference  is  to  the  Book  of 
Assize  and  Pleas  of  the  Crown.  His  other  references  are  to  the  Rolls 
of  Parliament.  He  gives  four  references,  the  7  Richard  II.,  items  15, 
17,  and  24,  and  the  7  Henry  IV.,  item  47.  Now,  none  of  those  cases 
have  anything  to  do  with  the  statute  that  I  ask  your  lordships  to  construe. 
If  your  lordships  take  the  7  Richard  II.,  item  15,  one  of  the  matters 
cited  for  the  justification  of  this  proposition,  it  is  a  case  of  the  surrender 
of  the  King's  castle;  that  is  an  act  of  adhering  abroad. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  given  afterwards  by  Hale,  Foster, 
.and  a  number  of  authorities. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — And  Hallam's  comments  on  Hole's  timid  acceptance 
70 


Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

of  doctrines  he  would  not  himself  have  enunciated  is  borne  out  if  we  find 
the  foundation  of  them  repeated  and  obviously  copied;  the  foundation 
does  not,  in  fact,  exist.  When  I  come,  as  I  will  be  able  to  come,  of 
course,  to  deal  with  the  statement  in  Hale,  I  will  again  have  to  point 
out  that  Hale  does  not  purport  to  be  dealing  in  speculation  as  to  what 
construction  the  statute  ought  to  have ;  he  only  repeats  all  these  authori- 
ties as  being  passages  from  Lord  Coke  as  being  the  foundation  of  the 
doctrine  which  he  again  quotes  from  Lord  Coke. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — What  I  am  not  quite  clear  about  in 
following  your  argument  is  this.  Do  you  say  it  is  not  a  crime  at  common 
law  for  a  British  subject  to  adhere  to  the  King's  enemies  without  the 
realm  ? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — For  the  moment  the  argument  is  not  addressed  to  the 
common  law  at  all. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  tell  you  why  I  am  putting  that  to  you; 
we  cannot  lose  sight  of  it,  I  think.  You  are  quite  justified  in  saying, 
if  you  think  it  right,  that  it  does  not  affect  your  argument;  but  if  we 
have  to  construe  the  statute  of  1351  we  have  also  to  bear  in  mind  what 
has  been  said  by  other  great  judicial  authorities  as  to  the  statute,  par- 
ticularly Lord  Blackburn,  who  said  it  was  declaratory  of  the  common  law. 
You  are  thrown  back  to  the  common  law  of  the  realm  in  order  to  under- 
stand the  statute.  I  quite  agree  we  still  have  to  construe  the  language 
of  the  statute  and  are  bound  by  it,  but  it  is  important  to  see  what  the 
common  law  of  the  realm  is. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  submit  by  the  common  law  of  the  realm  at  the 
time  of  that  statute  it  was  perfectly  clear  that  the  common  law  could 
not  deal  with  treasons  abroad,  for  the  reason  that  they  would  not  be 
triable  at  common  law. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Because  you  say  there  was  no  venue? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Because  I  say  there  was  no  venue.  That  is  a  very 
strong  argument.  Again  Lord  Coke  I  will  have  to  cite.  He  purports  to 
give  authority  to  show  that  venue  could  be  found;  and  that  again,  on 
being  searched,  does  not  bear  out  the  proposition  for  which  it  is  cited. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Are  you  going  to  come  to  the  2  Dyer,  to 
which  you  made  reference? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Yes.  On  the  question  both  as  to  the  common  law 
and  the  statute  the  opinion  of  the  judges  is  that  the  cases  of  treason 
without  the  realm  were  not  triable  before,  at  the  earliest,  the  28 
Henry  VIII.  The  first  item  upon  which  Lord  Coke  passes  his  opinion 
is  the  7  Richard  II.,  item  15  on  the  rolls.  That  is  not  a  case  of 
treason;  it  is  an  impeachment  of  the  Bishop  of  Norwich  for  peculation 
and  breach  of  contract  with  the  Crown.  An  investigation  of  the  case 
shows  that  it  was  in  his  capacity  as  Army  contractor  that  the  Bishop 
was  impeached,  having  apparently  contracted  with  the  Crown  to  furnish 
forthwith  an  army  of  certain  dimensions  and  maintainment,  and  having 
failed  to  do  so,  and  having  also  dealt  with  supplies  in  a  manner  which 
apparently  did  not  commend  itself  to  the  Court.  It  was  not  dealing 
with  treason  at  all.  So  far  as  can  be  discovered  it  was  not  a  case 
of  treason;  at  all  events  it  is  charged  in  that  very  general  way,  and  on 
investigation  it  is  very  hard  to  say,  even  if  you  had  got  behind  the  statute 

71 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 


of  the  old  days  of  accroachment  of  the  Royal  prerogative,  how  that 
breach  of  contract  to  supply  the  King  with  the  men  he  undertook  to  enlist 
could  possibly  have  been  treated  as  treason.  At  all  events,  it  was  not 
treated  as  treason. 

Item  17  is  a  case  of  two  persons  named  Cressyngham  and  Spykes- 
worth,  custodians  of  the  castle  in  Flanders,  who  were  put  in  arrest,  and 
put  to  their  answer  in  Parliament  for  surrendering  the  castle.  There  is 
no  mention  of  treason  in  the  Act.  One  of  the  persons  was  released,  and 
the  other,  his  answers  not  being  considered  satisfactory,  was  committed 
during  the  pleasure  of  His  Majesty;  it  does  not  purport  to  be  treason,  nor 
is  any  word  savouring  of  treason  alleged  in  the  Act. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVOBT — What  else  does  it  purport  to  be? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — It  was  probably  a  case  just  as  the  court-martial  on 
a  naval  officer  for  losing  his  ship,  and  investigation  of  the  loss;  it  was 
an  investigation  of  the  circumstances  under  which  the  castle  was  cap- 
tured. When  I  come  to  these  cases  in  Hale  I  find  that  I  am,  in  fact, 
giving  Hale's  own  answer  to  this  particular  case,  because  the  case  of  the 
castle  is  dealt  with  in  Hale,  and  when  I  come  to  deal  with  Hale  your 
lordship  will  see  that  he  is  not  satisfied  that  this  is  treason,  saving  that, 
of  course,  it  might  be  treason  if  he  traitorously  surrendered  the  castle, 
but  the  case  itself  does  not  show  that  any  such  charge  was  ever  involved. 

Then  item  24:  is  another  case  of  surrendering  a  castle,  and  taking 
money  as  part  of  the  terms.  It  is  not  charged,  my  lord,  either  under 
the  statute  or  as  treason,  nor  is  the  word  "  adhering  "  mentioned. 
The  defendant  is  reproved  by  the  Chancellor  for  treating  with  the  enemy 
without  the  King's  authority.  One  of  the  knights  who  were  defendants 
(they  were  all  put  to  their  answer  in  Parliament)  is  accused  of  accroach- 
ing the  Royal  power  by  issuing  letters  of  safe  conduct  without  the  Royal 
authority,  and  apparently  taking  money  for  doing  it.  That  was  the 
charge  in  that  case.  There  is  no  conviction  for  treason;  they  were  com- 
mitted to  prison  till  they  paid  a  ransom,  and  the  charge,  which  was  very 
loose,  was  not  under  the  statute  or  in  respect  of  treason  at  all;  it  seems 
to  have  been  some  charge  of  corruption  of  some  sort;  but  it  is  impossible 
to  spell  into  that  any  conviction  under  the  statute  of  Edward.  Further- 
more, these  cases  cited  are  all  cases  of  military  commanders  in  the  service 
of  the  King.  The  military  commander  in  the  service  of  the  King  was 
always  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  King's  Marshal,  whoever  he  was. 
The  military  servants  of  the  Crown  have,  so  far  as  I  know,  always  been 
on  a  different  footing  to  the  ordinary  civil  subject  of  His  Majesty  with 
regard  to  their  obligations,  and  with  regard  to  the  means  by  which  they 
may  have  been  dealt  with  for  military  offences  coming  within  the  cog- 
nisance of  the  marshal  or  constable.  At  all  events,  none  of  these  cases 
cited  for  the  bold  statement  in  Lord  Coke's  text  have  the  slightest  bear- 
ing to  justify  Lord  Coke  in  making  the  statement.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  with  regard  to  these  military  offences  that  in  the  reign  of  Queen 
Anne  a  statute  was  passed,  the  Mutiny  Act  of  the  7  Anne,  which  I  will 
refer  to  afterwards,  and  in  the  Mutiny  Act  of  the  7  Anne  there  is  an 
express  section  dealing  with  what  would  be  adhering  to  the  King's 
enemies  in  respect  of  persons  in  military  service  of  Her  Majesty  abroad. 
It  is  then  declared  to  be  high  treason,  and  apparently  created  high 
72 


Motion  to   Quash  Indictment. 

treason,  and  it  certainly  would  be  a  strange  comment  on  the  statutory 
authority,  if  in  truth  it  has  been  high  treason  for  hundreds  of  years, 
that,  nevertheless,  a  section  should  be  introduced  into  a  Mutiny  Act  as 
late  as  the  7  Anne  declaring  it  to  be  high  treason  if  it  clearly  had  been 
within  the  statute  that  we  are  dealing  with,  the  25  Edward  III. 
Military  persons  have  always  been  outside  the  ordinary  jurisdiction,  and 
for  that  reason,  as  I  think  Sir  Matthew  Hale  agrees,  these  cases  are  of 
little  use,  and  certainly  are  little  justification  for  reading  the  statute  in 
the  way  in  which  it  was  sought  to  be  read. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  reference  to  Hale  in  dealing  with  this 
is  pages  168  and  169. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — I  was  asking  my  friend  for  the  reference 
with  regard  to  the  criticism  of  Coke. 

Mr.    SULLIVAN — It  is  the   criticism  of  cases. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  thought  Hale  was  more  emphatic  about 
it;  he  took  the  same  view. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  must  have  misconveyed  myself  if  I  suggested  to 
your  lordship  that  I  was  going  to  quote  any  passages  of  Hale  criticising 
Lord  Coke;  the  criticism  of  Lord  Coke  was  my  reference  to  Stephen's 
criticism  of  Coke. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — I  understood  you  to  say  that  Hale  had  dealt 
with  the  case,  and  had  said  that  if  it  had  been  sought  to  be  done 
traitorously  it  might  be  high  treason. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  will  read  it;  it  is  at  the  bottom  of  page  168,  the 
last  page. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Will  not  you  read  page  167  first,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  second  paragraph? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — If  you  please.  "If  an  Englishman  during  war 
"  between  the  King  of  England  and  France  be  taken  by  the  French  and 
"  there  swear  fealty  to  the  King  of  France,  if  it  be  done  voluntarily,  it  is 
"  adhering  to  the  King's  enemy;  but  if  it  be  done  for  fear  of  his  life,  and 
"  then  he  returns,  as  soon  as  he  might,  to  the  allegiance  of  the  Crown  of 
"  England,  this  is  not  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies  within  this  Act." 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — This  is  the  Act  of  Edward? 

Mr.   SULLIVAN — Yes,   the  Act  we  are  dealing  with. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  was  the  kind  of  authority  that  I  had 
mind  when  putting  the  proposition  of  the  common  law  to  you.        If 
lat  is  right  it  establishes  it  at  common  law  against  you. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — If  it  is  right  it  is  put  not  as  a  statement  of  the 
)mmon  law  but  as  a  statement  on  the  statute. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE^ — That  may  be  only  arguing  in  a  circle; 
lere  you,  at  any  rate,  have  authority  for  saying  the  statute  of 
Iward  in  1351  was  merely  to  declare  the  common  law,  because  there 

some  doubt  about  it. 

Mr.   SULLIVAN — It  is  a  circle. 

fhe  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  have  come  across  somewhere  in  the  read- 
ig  for  the  purpose  of  this  case,  I  think  it  is  Sir  John  Campbell,  when 
i-ttorney-General,  said  the  statute  was  passed  to  get  rid  of  that  miserable 
J  of  things,  and  that  is  why  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  was  passed. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Though  in  a  circle,  I  submit,  so  far  from  weakening 

73 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


my  argument,  that  strengthens  my  argument.  If  you  find  cited,  whether 
you  call  it  under  the  statute  or  by  common  law,  authorities  for  a  pro- 
position applying  to  the  statute,  that  is  strong  evidence  that  if  the 
authorities  are,  in  fact,  mistaken  as  to  the  basis  of  decision,  and  there 
never  has  been  a  decision  upon  it,  that  then  your  lordships  will  have 
to  construe  not  the  common  law  but  the  statute  in  the  terms  of  the 
declaration  as  representing  whatever  the  true  meaning  of  those  terms 
may  be,  the  common  law  anterior  to  it.  Now,  my  lords,  I  was  passing 
to  the  bottom  of  page  168,  unless  the  Attorney-General  wishes  me  to 
read  any  more. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — No,  I  wanted  that  paragraph  which  sug- 
gested what  my  lord  said.  I  think  at  the  top  of  page  168  you  have 
Weston's  case. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Yes.  "  This  was  the  case  of  William  Weston  for 
"  delivering  up  the  estate  of  Oughtrewicke,  and  John  de  Gomenys  for 
"  delivering  up  the  Castle  of  Ardes,  in  France,  both  of  which  were  im- 
"  peached  by  the  Commons,  and  had  judgment  of  the  Lords  in  Parlia- 
"ment." 

Mr.  JUSTICES  HORRIDGEI — Are  these  the  cases  you  gave  under  the  items  1 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — No;  this  is  a  new  case  cited  by  him,  the  1 
Richard  II.,  No.  40.  William  de  Weston  was  to  be  drawn  and  hanged, 
but  execution  was  respited;  and  execution  was  respited  in  the  second 
case.  Then:  "  And  note,  though  the  charge  were  treason,  and  possibly 
"  the  proofs  might  probably  amount  to  it,  and  Walsingham,  sub  anno  1 
"  Richard  II.,  tells  us  it  was  done  by  treason;  yet  the  reason  expressed  in 
"  the  judgment  against  Weston  is  only  " — then  he  quotes  the  judgment, 
and  he  says,  passing  on  to  the  passage  I  wished  to  approach,  "  The 
(l  truth  is,  if  it  were  delivered  up  by  bribery  or  treachery,  it  might  be 
"  treason,  but  if  delivered  up  upon  cowardice  or  imprudence  without 
"  treachery  " — purely  upon  the  suggestion  I  made,  it  was  an  inquiry 
into  the  method  of  the  delivery  of  the  castle — "  though  it  were  an  offence 
"  against  the  laws  of  war,  and  the  party  subject  to  a  sentence  of  death  by 
"  martial  law,  as  it  once  happened  in  a  case  of  the  like  nature  in  the  late 
"  times  of  trouble,  yet  it  is  not  treason  by  the  common  law,  unless  it  was 
"  done  by  treachery;  but  though  this  sentence  was  given  in  terrorem, 
' '  yet  it  was  not  executed  :  it  iseems  to  be  a  kind  of  military  sentence,  though 
"  given  in  Parliament."  That  is  the  passage  I  wished  to  refer  to. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE; — That  is  a  very  strong  line,  that  it  would  not 
be  "  unless  it  was  done  by  treachery."  That  is  not  a  mere  "  might  "; 
it  is  denning  the  law. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — "  The  truth  is,  if  it  were  delivered  up  by  bribery  or 
"  treachery,  it  might  be  treason." 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE; — The  last  sentence  you  read  is  what  I  was 
referring  to:  "  Unless  it  was  done  by  treachery." 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — "  Yet  it  is  not  treason  by  the  common  law,  unless 
"  it  was  done  by  treachery;  but  though  this  sentence  was  given  in 
' '  terrorem,  yet  it  was  not  executed ;  it  seems  to  be  a  kind  of  military 
"  sentence,  though  given  in  Parliament." 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  means  if  it  was  surrendered  by  reason 
of  cowardice  or  imprudence,  then  it  would  not  be  treason  at  common 
74 


Motion  to  Quash  Indictment. 

law,  or  might  not  be,  whichever  phrase  you  choose  to  adopt;  but  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  was  surrendered  by  reason  of  bribery  or  treachery, 
that  would  be  treason.  Is  not  that  the  effect  of  it? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  submit  not.  I  submit,  when  you  read  the  whole 
passage,  he  really  is  not  dealing  with  the  question  of  adhering  outside  the 
realm  at  all,  and  is  simply  dealing  with  these  two  cases,  and  establishing 
nothing  with  regard  to  the  statute  or  the  common  law,  and  he  simply 
passes  from  them  dismissing  them  as  military  sentences,  throwing  no 
light  one  way  or  the  other. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  an  observation  which  is  justified,  I 
think,  in  my  opinion,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  surrendering  the  castle  of 
the  King  by  reason  of  cowardice  or  imprudence;  but  it  is  not  justified 
if  it  relates  to  the  .surrender  of  the  castle  by  reason  of  bribery  or  treachery ; 
he  seems  to  draw  that  very  distinction.  He  says  cowardice  and  imprudence 
is  not  treachery,  but  military  law. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  opening  statement,  where  one  expects  to  find  the 
most  definite  opinion,  if  definite  opinion  exist®,  is  "  The  truth  is,  if  it 
"  was  delivered  up  by  bribery  or  treachery."  That  is  the  extreme  case; 
it  might  be  treason. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — Supposing  treason  was  not  known  outside 
the  realm,  it  seems  a  funny  sort  of  dissertation ;  he  is  dealing  with  giving 
up  a  castle  outside  the  realm,  and  it  seems,  to  my  mind,  a  very  large 
order  to  have  this  alternative  put  if  the  law  was  that  there  was  no  such 
thing  as  treason  outside  the  realm. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — What  I  am  dealing  with  is,  you  will  always  have  to 
come  back  to  Lord  Coke's  authority  to  find  the  substance  of  the  doctrine 
of  treason  outside  the  realm.  Apparently  Lord  Coke  thought  it  required 
authority  to  support  it,  and,  my  lord,  I  cite  page  168  of  Hale  to  the  effect 
that  these  cases  of  the  delivery  of  castles  by  their  military  custodians 
are  not  cases  on  the  statute,  and  therefore  are  not  authorities.  The  cases 
at  all  events  are  not  authorities  on  the  matter  that  I  am  dealing  with. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — Had  not  you  better  read  the  next  passage; 
that  is  one  of  the  difficulties  I  feel  in  your  way;  the  statute  of  Henry 
11  touching  the  trial  of  foreign  treason,  viz.,  adhering  to  the  King's 
"enemies,  as  also  for  compassing  the  King's  death  without  the  kingdom, 
"  at  this  day  the  statutes  of  35  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  2,  hath  sufficiently 
"  provided  for  it." 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  is  under  the  statute  this  jurisdiction 
arises. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  have  not  come  to  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII.,  but 
on  the  passage  I  cite  in  my  submission,  until  you  have  the  statute  of 
Henry  VIII.  the  matter  would  be  pure  speculation  only,  because  there 
could  not  be  crimes  for  which  the  man  could  not  be  tried.  If  the  authority 
in  Dyer  is  correct,  which  apparently  he  suggests,  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII. 
provides  for  the  trial. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORY — Was  not  an  English  subject  who  committed 
murder  abroad  triable  in  this  country  if  he  came  back? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  think  not,  my  lord,  at  common  law;  I  think  the  old 
difficulty  of  venue  existed;  that  is  my  impression  reading  it,  though  at 
the  moment  I  cannot  give  the  answer  on  the  book. 

75 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — I  think  you  will  find  authority  for  the  proposition 
he  can  be  tried,  and  if  he  can  be  tried  the  Court  probably  found  some 
way  out  of  the  difficulty  about  venue. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — At  the  moment  I  am  under  the  impression  that,  until 
some  statutory  provision  was  made,  the  common  law  took  no  cognisance 
of  what  a  man  did  on  territory  that  did  not  belong  to  the  common  law. 
I  will  have  to  cite,  when  I  come  to  deal  with  The  King  v.  Vaughan, 
and  other  cases  of  that  type,  authorities  that  the  common  law  had  no 
cognisance  even  of  crimes  committed  within  the  realm,  where  the  portion 
of  the  realm  within  which  they  were  committed  was  outside  the  common 
law  jurisdiction;  it  was  to  remedy  that  that  one  of  the  statutes  was 
passed;  there  are  two  statutes  of  Henry  VIII.,  the  28  Henry  VIII.  is  on© 
and  the  35  Henry  VIII.  is  the  other. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  35  Henry  VIII.  we  shall  have  to  look 
at.  Before  you  leave  Hale  there  is  a  passage  which  seems  to  have  a 
very  direct  bearing  upon  the  point  we  are  discussing  at  page  169;  I  do 
not  think  it  has  been  read:  "  Touching  the  trial  of  high  treason/' 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Mr.  Justice  Horridge  read  that  just  now. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — But  I  want  the  last  part  of  it:  "  Touching 
the  trial  of  foreign  treason,  viz.,  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  as 
also  for  compassing  the  King's  death  without  the  kingdom,  at  this  day 
the  statutes  of  35  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  2,  hath  sufficiently  provided  for 
it."  This  passage  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to :  "  But  at  common 
law  he  might  have  been  indicted  in  any  county  of  England,  and  especially 
where  the  offender's  lands  lie,  if  he  have  any."  The  authority  for  that 
is  the  5  Richard  II.  If  that  is  right,  it  gives  authority  for  the  trial 
for  foreign  treason  in  any  county,  particularly  in  a  county  where 
offender's  lands  lie. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — If,  in  truth,  that  was  supported  by  the  authority  given, 
that  would  get  over  the  difficulty  I  allege. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — And  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  what  you 
tell  us  is  the  result  of  the  case  in  the  2  Dyer. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — An  investigation  of  the  case  cited  shows  it  to  be 
as  follows 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  have  considered  it. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Yes.  It  was  the  case  of  a  riot  at  Cambridge  in 
which  the  burgesses  rioted,  and  in  the  course  of  the  riot  apparently 
made  some  attack  on  the  colleges,  and  some  attempt  to  burn  their 
charters.  The  case  in  question  is  that  the  burgesses  were  summoned  to 
Parliament  in  respect  of  the  riot  occurring  in  their  town,  and  their  towns- 
men attempting  to  burn  the  records  of  the  University;  the  burgesses 
were  summoned  to  Parliament  to  show  cause  why  their  charter  should  not 
be  forfeited. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Are  you  suggesting  that  is  the  authority 
for  this  proposition  in  Hale?  What  has  that  to  do  with  foreign  treason? 

Mr.    SULLIVAN — My  colleague,    Professor    Morgan,    has    investigated 
every  one  of  these  more  ancient  cases,  and  he  returns  me  this  extract  of 
the  case  cited,  and  if  there  is  some  other  case,  I  can  only  say  it  is  not 
this  one. 
76 


Motion  to  Quash  Indictment. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  seems  to  me  miles  away  from  the  point; 
it  is  not  like  Sir  Matthew  Hale. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Is  not  this  a  justification  for  Stephen's  Commentary 
on  Coke,  at  page  57,  that  passages  in  the  Third  Institute  are  often  entirely 
unwarranted  by  the  authorities  which  he  quotes  for  them? 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  is  a  novel  proposition  to  say  that  because 
Stephen  commented  severely  on  Coke,  that  therefore  we  are  to  take 
the  same  comment  as  made  on  Sir  Matthew  Hale. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — That  cannot  be  the  case;  there  must  be  some 
mistake  about  that. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  agree;  it  does  seem  to  me  a  transference  to  an 
object  that  was  not  within  the  original  ambit  of  the  statute.  I  quite 
forgot  it  was  Hale  I  had  open  before  me. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  have  sent  for  that  particular  case.  My 
learned  friend  will  allow  me  to  point  out  it  may  or  may  not  be  the 
ground  of  the  comment  made  by  the  learned  author,  Hale,  but  the 
advocate  who  appeared  for  the  Crown  said,  in  Gallon's  case,  "  If  a 
"  man  be  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  in  France,  his  land  is  forfeitable, 
"  and  his  treason  shall  be  tried  where  his  land  is,  as  has  been  oftentimes 
"done  in  respect  of  the  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies  in  Scotland." 
That  was  said  in  the  course  of  the  argument. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — What  do  you  mean  by  Gallon's  case? 
The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — That  is  the  case  referred  to. 
Mr.   SULLIVAN — It  was  the  case  of  the  burgesses  of  Cambridge. 
The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  have  sent  for  it. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  does  seem  so  strange,  though  it  may 
be  so,  that  in  those  days  when  there  was  so  much  happening  abroad  in 
which  the  Kings  of  England  were  interested,  that  it  should  not  have 
been  treason  to  commit  the  act  in  France,  but  treason  if  committed  in 
England. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Is  the  reference  right,  the  5  Richard  II.,  trial  54? 
The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — That  is  Peter  Gallon's  case. 
Mr.  SULLIVAN — How  there  came  to  be  discussion  on  the  law  of  treason 
in  the  case  I  referred  to  I  do  not  know.     The  case  was  looked  up  on 
the  Roll  of  Parliament. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  understand  it  is  reported  in  Fitzherbert's 
Abridgment.  I  only  happen  to  know  of  the  case  because  I  have  the 
reference  in  the  passage  to  the  argument  of  the  representative  of  the 
Crown. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  know  there  is  a  reference  to  it  in  Fitz- 
herbert's  Abridgment.  We  will  see  what  the  case  is. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — We  may  perhaps  have  looked  at  the  wrong  case. 
Sir  Matthew  Hale  is  more  likely  to  be  right  than  we  are.  My  friends 
got  it  from  the  Rolls  of  Parliament,  and  apparently  the  reference  is  at 
all  events  consistent  with  the  Rolls  of  Parliament.  There  may  be  a  mis- 
apprehension about  it.  Hale  introduces  some  new  cases.  Stephen's 
Commentary  on  Hale  at  page  62  ia  that  he  is  too  fond  of  repeating  Coke 
literally  and  ignoring  his  mistakes.  That  is  what  Stephen  says  about 
Hale.  Hale  quotes  three  cases  from  the  Close  Roll,  namely,  6  John, 
membrane  19;  7  Edward  III.,  part  1,  membrane  15  and  membrane  9. 

77 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

They  are  all  prior  to  the  statute,  The  first  is  apparently  throwing  little 
light  on  the  subject,  because  it  deals  with  the  confiscation  of  the  lands  of 
the  barons  who  renounced  their  allegiance  to  King  John  in  Normandy. 
We  are  all  familiar  with  the  disputes  that  were  going  on  in  Normandy 
as  to  who  was  the  King  of  Normandy;  the  position  of  a  baron  in  those' 
days  must  have  been  a  somewhat  difficult  one,  not  from  the  dual  alliance 
but  the  dual  claims  of  his  alliance,  and  they  fought  out  their  battles  over 
his  body.  The  barons  in  Normandy  who  acknowledged  fealty  to  the 
wrong  lord  had  their  lands  forfeited  in  the  reign  of  John.  This  is  before 
the  Act,  and  it  does  not  throw  much  light  on  the  subject  we  are  dis- 
cussing here,  and  would,  perhaps,  involve  considerable  investigation  on 
feudal  law. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  am  very  loath  to  interrupt  or  to  inter- 
fere with  your  argument,  because  it  is  obviously  based  upon  a  very 
complete  research,  but  the  difficulty  is  we  must  at  some  time  come  to 
more  modern  times,  and  the  law  laid  down  there.  You  see  these  matters 
have  been  discussed,  and  although  it  may  be  true  that  Lord  Coke  went 
further  than  he  was  justified  in  going,  still  if  you  find  that  later  authori- 
ties have  adopted  that  view,  and  that  there  is  a  judicial  authority  for  it, 
even  though  it  does  not  actually  decide  the  case,  it  is  asking  much  of  us 
to  ask  us  to  decide  that  Lord  Coke  was  wrong. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — If  I  submit  there  has  been  no  case  decided  on  it 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Not  on  the  express  point. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — If,  asi  I  submit,  this  is  a  case  of  first  impression,  so 
far  as  the  decisions  upon  it  go,  by  any  Court  of  justice  affecting  either 
person  or  property 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Is  that  quite  right? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  say  if  it  is. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  do  not  follow.  You  will  tell  me  directly 
when  you  come  to  it  how  there  could  be  a,  conviction  in  Lynch's  case  if 
the  present  argument  is  right.  Lynch  was  indicted  for  treason  in  South 
Africa. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  am  going  to  deal  with  Lynch's  case,  in  which  the 
case  was  allowed  to  go  to  the  jury,  but  I  preferred  to  deal  with  the 
authorities  there  cited. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  do  not  want  to  take  you  to  Lynch's  case  at 
once  unless  it  is  convenient.  I  doubt  whether  we  serve  any  useful  purpose 
by  looking  too  much  into  these  earlier  authorities  when  we  have  to  deal 
with  modern  times  and  the  law  that  binds  us  now. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  am  sorry  your  lordship  did  not  express  any  desire 
beforehand  that  it  might  be-  most  necessary  to  deal  with  The  King  v. 
Lynch.  That  is  reported  in  1903  King's  Bench  at  page  444.  In  the  Law 
Reports,  report  of  The  King  v.  Lynch,  this  point  is  not  reported. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes,  at  page  446. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — There  was  a  motion  to  quash  the  indictment. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — On  this  ground? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — On  this  ground,  but  your  lordship  sees  that  there  is 

simply  a  very  short  argument  given,  and  the  only  decision  of  the  Court  is 

upon  a  matter  of  procedure ;  that  is  why  I  originally  called  attention  to  it ; 

the  only  judgment  of  the  Court  is  not  upon  the  point  we  are  considering, 

78 


Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

but  solely  on  the  question  of  procedure  whether  the  indictment   should 
be  quashed. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  do*  not  know  whether  you  have  had  the 
opportunity  of  reading  the  long  argument  upon  it. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Yes,  I  have,  from  the  shorthand  notes. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — The  point  was  repeated  on  the  conclusion  of  the 
case  for  the  prosecution. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  shall  have  to  trespass,  again  and  borrow  the  shorthand 
notes  of  The  King  v.  Lynch. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — You  will  find  on  the  conclusion  of  the  case  for 
the  prosecution  the  argument  was  really  put  before  the  Court ;  it  was  quite 
shortly  put  at  the  earlier  stage. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — So  I  noticed.  The  argument  comes  at  page  107  of 
the  shorthand  notes,  and  is  continued  on  page  108.  There  is  an  authority 
cited — Maclane's  case  and  Smith  O'Brien's  case — and  the  observation  of 
Mr.  Justice'  Finucane  is  stated  later  on,  namely,  that  the  adherence  is 
imputed  to  the  person  charged,  not  to  the  place  of  the  offence.  The 
important  matter  to>  show  what  was  in  the  mind  of  the  Court  is  the  manner 
in  which  Lord  Alverstone  dealt  with  The  King  v.  Vaugha/n  at  page  109 — 
"  It  seems  to  me  that  The  King  v.  Vaughcm  is  a.  direct  authority  against 
"  you ;  it  is  in  the  13  State  Trials,  and  the  passage  is  at  page  525  and  page 
t(  526.  I  have  no  doubt  you  have  looked  at  this  most  carefully.  There 
"  are  passages  in  Hale  and  others  that  are  against  this  contention.  They 
"  may  be  the  relics  of  a  barbaric  age,  but  you  have  to  deal  with  them/5 

There  is  an  observation  further  up  on  the  same  page  by  the  Lord 
Chief  Justice — "  I  have  no  doubt  you  have  considered  it,  but  it  seems  to 
"  me  that  The  King  v.  Vaughan  is  a  direct  authority.  The  charge  against 
"  the  prisoner  is  left  to  the  jury  upon  the  count  only  of  adhering  to  the 
tl  King's  enemies,  that  being  done  upon  the  high  seas,  and  the  point  is  then 
"  attempted  to  be  taken  that  he  was  not  a  British  subject  at  all."  The 
Attorney-General  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  is  no  count  for 
compassing,  as  the  counsel  for  the  defendant  had  suggested,  and  then  the 
Lord  Chief  Justice  says,  "  It  seems  to  me  The  King  v.  Vaughan  is  a 
"  direct  authority  against  you."  Then  he  says,  "  I  have  no  doubt  you  have 
"  looked  at  it  most  carefully ;  there  are  passages  in  Hale  and  others  that  are 
"  against  this  contention.  They  may  be  the  relics  of  a  barbaric  age,  but 
*'  you  have  to  deal  with  them." 

Then  there  is  a  quotation  from  Hale.  The  argument  of  the  Attorney- 
General  commences  at  the  bottom  of  page  111.  And  he  says,  "  I  men- 
tioned a  statute  which  was  passed  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  George  II. 
"  which  related  to  the  case  of  a,  certain  number  of  English  subjects  who  had, 
"  while  this  country  was  engaged  in  war  with  Spain,  taken  commissions  from 
"the  Spanish  Government  and  been  guilty  of  buccaneering  and  piracy  in 
"  the  West  Indies.  The  statute  was  passed  to  remove  any  doubt  that  these 
"persons  might  be  tried  for  piracy  although  the  act  that  they  had  com- 
"  mitted  was  also  one  of  high  treason.  I  shall  just  read  the  words  of  the 
"statute."  I  will  deal  with  the  statute  in  one  moment.  He  cites  the 
dictum,  because  he  admits  it  is  no  more,  of  Mr.  Justice  Willes,  in  advising 
the  Lords  in  Mulcahy's  case ;  that  is  clearly  a  dictum,  and  no  more. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I   think  that  is  quite  right;    it  was  not 

79 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

necessary  for  the  decision,  but  that  was  the  opinion  of  all  the  judges.  It 
was  the  opinion  of  the  judges  delivered  to  the  House  of  Lords  in  Mulcahy?s 
case,  and  they  construed  the  language  of  the  statute  of  1351  contrary  to 
your  present  argument. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — In  the  summary  of  the  argument  in  the  House  of  Lords 
it  would  appear  he  said  at  the  bottom  of  page  317 — "  By  the  statute  of 
"  25  Edward  III.,  statute  5,  chapter  2  (extended  to  Ireland  by  Poyning's 
"  Act,  see  O'Brien  v.  The  Queen),  it  was  declared  to  be  treason."  Then  he 
purports  to  quote  the  words  of  the  statute — "  When  a  man  doth  compass  or 
"  imagine  the  death  of  our  Lord  the  King,"  &o.,  "  or  if  a,  man  do  levy  war 
11  against  our  Lord  the  King  in  his  realm  or  by  adhering  to  the  King's 
"  enemies  in  his  realm  or  elsewhere  and  thereof  he  probably  attainted  of 
"open  deed."  He  purports  to  quote  the  words  of  the  statute  because  it 
is  in  inverted  commas.  It  was  a  dictum  pure  and  simple ;  the  case  of  The 
Queen  v.  Mulcdhy  had  nothing  to  say  to  treason  without  the  realm  at  all; 
the  point  that  went  to  the  House  of  Lords  did  not  involve  that  question. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  think  you  are  quite  justified  in  saying 
that. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  case  is  reported  in  3  English  and  Irish  appeal 
oases  at  common  law,  and  the  decision  in  the  Court  below,  apart  from 
this  question  of  the  jury,  and  the  only  matter  of  argument  in  the  Court 
below,  was  whether  a  man  could  commit  an  act  in  Dublin  when  not  in 
Dublin  himself  to  commit  it,  it  being  proved  it  was  done  by  a  member  of 
the  Corporation  of  which  he  was  proved  to  be  one. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HOBRIDGE — I  have  not  the  copy  of  Lynch/s  trial  in  the 
shorthand  notes,  but  I  have  The  Times  Law  Reports,  and  it  seems  that  the 
point  was  not  only  taken,  in  the  first  instance,  before  plea,  but  was  taken 
afterwards  at  the  close  of  the  case. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — At  that  time  the  argument  was  developed. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — Whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  the  Lord  Chief 
Justice  must  have  decided  the  point  by  leaving  the  issue  to  the  jury. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — He  did,  on  the  authority  of  The  King  v.  Vaughtm, 
which  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  more  than  once  repeats  is  conclusive  and 
decisive  on  the  subject;  and  if  he  was  right  in  that,  and  if  The  King  v. 
Vaughan  that  he  purports  to  follow  is  conclusive  on  the  subject,  I  could  not 
hope  to  convince  your  lordships  after  this  lapse  of  time,  and  your  lordships, 
in  this  Court  at  all  events,  would  follow  the  same  precedent.  Now  let  me 
take  The  King  v.  Vaughan,  which  is  reported  in  the  13  State  Trials. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — It  is  also  reported  in  2  Salkeld. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  am  reading  at  column  487 ;  that  will  give  your 
lordship  the  indictment  for  the  trial  of  Captain  Thomas  Vaughan.  It  was 
an  indictment  tried  before  Sir  Charles  Hedges,  judge  of  the  High  Court  of 
Admiralty,  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  Holt,  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  Treby,  the 
Lord  Chief  Baron  Ward,  Mr.  Justice  Turton,  and  others  of  His  Majesty's 
Commissioners!.  It  was  tried  before  the  Lord  High  Admiral  and  the  other 
persons  that  were  mentioned  in  the  statute  that  I  will  have  to  open  to 
your  lordships,  as  showing  conclusively  that  it  was  tried  in  respect  of  acts 
done  within  the  realm  of  England,  though  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
common  law. 

Mr.   JUSTICE  AVORT — Surely  that  was  a  trial  under  a  special  Com- 
mission. 
80 


Motion  to   Quash  Indictment. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — It  was  presided  over  by  the  judge  of  the  High  Court 
of  Admiralty. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — And  Lord  Chief  Justice  Holt. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Yes.  I  suggest  that  since  the  President  of  the  Court 
was  the  Admiralty  judge,  that  shows  it  was  tried  under  a  statute  which  I 
will  pass  to,  and  I  will  show  that  the  judge  of  Admiralty  and  divers  other 
weighty  persons,  that  were  construed  to  mean  Her  Majesty's  judges,  sat 
with  him  under  the  statute  of  28  Henry  VIII. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — There  is  no  doubt  whatever  it  was  an 
indictment  for  high  treason  on  the  high  seas. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — It  was  an  indictment  for  high  treason  within  the 
realm,  as  I  will  show  your  lordship;  it  was  on  the  narrow  seas.  I  will 
show  that  at  that  date  there  was  no  doubt  or  question  that  the  place 
where  the  acts  were  committed  was  within  the  realm  of  England.  The 
date  of  the  trial  is  in  1696,  and  in  1696  to  doubt  the  realm  of  England 
extended  to  the  narrow  seas  would  itself  be  such  an  act  as  might  have 
been  extremely  dangerous  to  a  century  earlier.  I  am  reading  two-thirds 
down  column  488.  The  prisoner  was  indicted  for  "  being  then  on  the 
"  high  seas,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Admiralty  of  England,  about 
"  14  leagues  from  Deal,  did  then  and  there  by  force  and  arms  falsely, 
"  maliciously,  and  traitorously  aid  and  help  and  assist  the  enemies  of  our 
"  said  Lord  the  King."  That  is  the  first  count.  The  second  is  of  great 
importance :  ' '  As  a  false  traitor  against  our  said  Lord  the  King  further 
"  designing,  practising,  and  with  his  whole  strength  intending  the  common 
"  peace  of  trapquility  of  this  kingdom  of  England  to  disturb,"  an  offence, 
observe,  ayfm&i  the  common  peace  of  the  kingdom,  <(  and  a  war  and 
"  rebeli^fi  against  the  said  King  upon  the  high  seas  within  the  juris- 
11  dictifn%of  the  Admiralty  of  England  to  move,  stir  up,  and  procure; 
"  and  the  said  Lord  the  King,  from  the  title,  honour,  royal  name,  and 
"  imperial  crown  of  his  kingdom  of  England,  and  dominions  upon  the 
"  high  seas,  to  depose  and  deprive;  and  miserable  slaughter  of  the  sub- 
"  jects  of  the  said  Lord  the  King,  and  this  kingdom  of  England,  upon 
"  the  high  seas,  and  within  the  jurisdiction  aforesaid,  to  cause  and  pro- 
"  cure;  on  the  said  8th  day  of  July,  in  the  said  seventh  year  of  the  King, 
"  upon  the  high  seas,  about  14  leagues  from  Deal,  and  within  the 
"  dominion  of  the  Crown  of  England,  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
"  Admiralty  of  England  aforesaid  ";  then  with  other  traitors  war  against 
the  King  he  levied  and  waged;  he  levied  and  waged  war. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — It  was  not  upon  a  British  vessel,  was  it?  I 
do  not  gather  that;  it  was  on  a  French  vessel;  it  was  not  within  the 
theory  that  an  English  ship  is  a  portion  of  the  Dominions? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — No. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — It  is  laid  as  within  the  Admiralty  jurisdic- 
tion. The  "  Franconia  "  showed  us  that  the  ordinary  Admiralty  juris- 
diction was  not,  at  any  rate,  beyond  the  three-mile  limit,  and  this  was  14 
leagues  from  Deal;  the  facts  were  that  it  was  not  on  a  British  ship,  and 
it  was  levied  outside  the  Admiralty  jurisdiction. 

Mr.   SULLIVAN — Outside  the  common  law  jurisdiction  and  within  the 
Admiralty  jurisdiction,   and  not  being  a  British  ship,   it  being  a  French 
G  81 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


ship,  shows  that  he  must  have  been  within  the  realm.  I  will  show  you 
by  overwhelming  authority  that  he  was  within  the  realm. 

Mr.   JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — The  indictment  alleges  it  as   such. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  indictment  alleges  it  as  being  within  the  realm, 
and  it  further  provides:  "  And  the  said  Thomas  Vaughan  then  and  there 
"  being  aboard  the  said  ship  of  war  called  the  '  Loyal  Clencarty,'  assembled 
"  with  other  false  rebels  and  traitors  as  aforesaid."  That  is  a  word 
applicable  only  within  the  realm.  "  Assembled  with  the  other  false 
"  rebels  and  traitors  as  aforesaid,  maliciously,  wickedly,  and  traitorously 
"  sailed  a  cruising  to  several  maritime  places,  with  the  aforesaid  ship 
"  of  war  called  the  '  Loyal  Clencarty,'  with  an  intent  to  take,  spoil,  and 
"  carry  away  the  ships,  goods,  and  money  of  our  said  Lord  the  King, 
"  and  his  subjects,  by  force  and  arms,  upon  the  high  and  open  seas, 
"  within  the  jurisdiction  aforesaid;  against  the  duty  of  his  allegiance,  the 
11  peace  of  our  Lord  the  King,  his  crown  and  dignities;  and  likewise 
"  against  the  form  of  a  statute  in  this  case  made  and  provided." 

Now  that,  I  do  submit,  is  the  clearest  indictment  of  a  man  doing 
something  within  the  realm,  and  I  will  show  you  that  he  was  within  the 
realm.  I  will  suggest  to  you  that  when  you  look  at  the  President  of  the 
Court  in  his  relation  to  the  other  members  of  the  Court  assisting  him, 
the  President  was  the  judge  of  the  Admiralty  Court,  and  that  shows  he 
was  tried  under  the  28  Henry,  and  not  the  35  Henry.  Had  he  been 
tried  under  the  35  Henry  for  a  foreign  treason,  the  Admiralty  judge 
would  not  have  sat  as  the  President  of  it.  Now,  the  question  arises 
whether  the  piracy  which  was  the  offence  alleged  to  have  been  com- 
mitted was  within  the  realm  of  England.  My  lords,  on  that  there  are 
any  number  of  cases.  In  The  King  v.  Heyn,  in  the  Law  Reports  2, 
Exchequer  Division,  I  wish  to  cite  from  page  178.  The  Chief  Justice 
says  at  the  bottom :  ' '  Even  to  our  tames  the  doctrine  of  the  three-mile 
"  zone  has  never  been  adopted  by  the  writers  on  English  law.  To  Black  - 
"  stone,  who  in  his  Commentaries  treats  of  the  sea  with  reference  to  the 
"  prerogative,  as  also  to  his  modern  editor,  Mr.  Stephen,  it  is  unknown, 
"equally  so  to  Mr.  Chitty,  whose  work  on  the  prerogative  is  of  the 
"  present  century.  It  was  not  till  the  beginning  of  this  century  that  any 
"  mention  of  such  a  doctrine  occurs  in  the  Courts  of  this  country.  But 
"  to  the  Continental  jurists  the  suggestion  of  Bynkershovk  seemed  a 
"  happy  solution  of  the  great  controversy  as  to  the  freedom  of  the  sea." 
In  Coke  upon  Littleton,  section  432,  it  is  said:  "  For  if  a  man  be  upon 
"the  sea  of  England,  he  is  within  the  kingdom  or  realm  of  England  and 
"  within  the  ligeance  of  the  King  of  England  and  of  his  Crown  of  Eng- 
"  land.  And  yet  the  high  sea  is  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  common 
"  law  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Lord  Admiral."  Selden  defines 
the  boundary  of  the  kingdom  of  England — "  Within  the  kingdom  is  taken 
"  for  that  which  is  within  the  four  seas,"  at  page  387,  and  at  page  399 
he  says  "  within  the  four  seas  and  within  the  realm  signifies  one  and 
"  the  same  thing."  He  says  the  realm  means  more  than  the  land  of 
England,  and  he  shows  the  Admiralty  Commissioners'  jurisdiction  extends 
far  beyond  it.  In  Hale  De  Jure  Maris  it  is  said,  "  The  narrow  sea 
"  adjoining  to  the  coast  of  England  is  part  of  the  waste  and  demesnes 
82 


Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

"  and  dominions  of  the  King  of  England  whether  it  lie  within  the  body 
"of  any  country  or  not.  This  is  abundantly  proved  by  Master  Selden." 
Then  he  goes  on  to  distinguish  between  the  wide  sea,  as  he  calls  it,  as 
out  of  the  precincts  of  the  seas  belonging  to  the  realm  of  England,  and 
he  speaks  of  the  narrow  seasi  at  11  and  14.  Selden  cites  the  Admiralty 
Commission  to  show  that  the  territorial  waters  of  the  British  Channel 
terminated  only  with  the  coast  of  France.  As  late  as  the  seventeenth 
century,  I  think  you  will  find,  my  recollection  is  this,  cases  in  which  com- 
plaint was  actually  made  by  a  certain  king,  the  Spanish  or  the  Dutch, 
that  the  King  of  England  had  failed  in  his  duty  of  neutrality  of  keeping 
the  King's  peace  up  to  the  French  shore. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  need  not  labour  that  point,  at  any 
rate,  as  we  are  at  present  advised  that  The  King  v.  Vaughan  does  not 
bind  us. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Very  well,  my  lord.  Now  if  The  King  v.  Vaughan 
does  not  deal  with  the  matter,  the  next  argument  of  the  Attorney-General 
in  The  King  v.  Lynch  was  the  statute  of  the  18  of  George  II.  That  is 
set  out  in  extenso  in  the  shorthand  notes,  if  I  may  quote  from  them,  at  page 
112.  The  King  v.  Vaughan,  the  Attorney-General  said,  was  the  chief 
authority  upon  which  he  relied,  and  I  think  he  puts  it  forward  as  being  a 
matter  of  considerable  importance.  The  chief  difficulty  I  feel  is  that 
there  are  so  many  authorities.  He  puts  it  in  the  forefront  of  his  argu- 
ment. Now  I  will  come  to  deal  with  the  statute. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORY — It  is  the  18  George  II.? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Yes;  chapter  30.  Now  I  will  cite  the  statute,  and 
I  would  ask  your  lordships  to  bear  in  mind  this :  there  were  two  statutes 
of  Henry  VIII.  dealing  with  all  sorts  of  offences.  As  regards  the  first 
one,  the  recital  sets  out  that  there  are  treasons,  felonies,  murders, 
robberies,  and  so  forth,  which  escaped  unpunished,  which  are  committed 
on  the  King's  dominions  on  the  high  seas,  because  they  have  to  be  tried 
under  the  civil  law.  They  are  all  civil  law  offences,  and  have  to  be 
tried  by  the  civil  law  of  the  Admiralty.  They  removed  that,  and  the 
statute  of  28  Henry  VIII.  provided  a  tribunal,  or,  rather,  provided  a 
procedure  to  enable  the  tribunal  to  try  them  according  to  the  course  of 
the  common  law.  Now,  the  statute  of  28  Henry  VIII.  dealt  with  all 
sorts  of  offences  committed  within  what  was  called  the  King's  dominions 
on  the  high  seas,  and  I  will  have  to  comment  on  that,  that  if  there  was  a 
foreign  law  of  treason  it  must  have  been  noted  at  the  time.  At  all  events 
that  was  only  with  regard  to  the  argument  of  The  King  v.  Vaughan 
which  I  have  disposed  of,  and  I  will  not  refer  to  it.  But  under  the 
statute  of  Henry  VIII.,  at  the  time  of  the  Act  of  1745  which  I  shall 
read  to  your  lordship,  the  following  difficulty  had  arisen.  Indicted 
under  the  statute  of  Henry  for  piracy  committed  in  the  King's  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  high  seas  outside  of  the  four  seas,  the  pirates  produced  letters 
of  commission  of  alien  enemies  accordingly  justifying  themselves  by  the 
fact  that  they  were  not  pirates  hostes  humani  generis,  but  only  persons 
committing  piracy  within  the  28  Henry  VIII.  by  breach  of  allegiance 
and  making  war  upon  the  King's  ships,  which  were  so  many  castles  of 
the  King.  It  stands  in  this  way,  that  it  does  seem  somewhat  amusing 

83 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 


that  a  man  for  being  a  pirate  should  be  anxious  to  prove  that  he  was 
something  worse ;  but,  in  fact,  that  course  was  being  taken,  and  doubts 
had  arisen  whether  the  production  of  the  commission  of  the  alien 
persons  at  war  with  the  Crown  removed  that  offence  against  the  King's 
ships  from  the  category  mentioned,  namely,  the  treasons  that  were  cog- 
nisable by  the  Court  of  Admiralty  according  to  the  civil  law. 

There  being  that  distinction  to  draw  I  rely  on  my  argument  before 
I  approach  the  case  that  the  civil  law  recognised  the  breach  of  the  personal 
allegiance  on  the  high  seas  without  the  realm  of  England,  but  still  within 
the  King's  dominion  of  the  high  seas,  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Admiralty,  which  was  a  civil  law  as  recited  in  the  statute.  It  was  to 
remove  those  doubts  that  this  Act  was  passed  in  1745,  and  what  did  it 
provide?  It  provided,  first,  that  notwithstanding  that  he  had  an  alien 
commission,  and  thereby  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  on  the  high  seas 
without  the  realm  he  would  have  committed  the  civil  law  offence  of  one 
of  the  treasons  mentioned  in  28  Henry  VIII. ,  that  though  he  should  prove 
that,  he  might  be  nevertheless  tried  for  piracy  as  originally  indicted  on 
his  commission  of  the  alien  enemy  which  was  to  save  him  from  being 
tried  as  a  pirate.  It  had  two  other  provisions.  It  provided  that  if  he 
was  convicted  or  acquitted  as  a  pirate  he  should  not  be  tried  again  for 
high  treason,  and  it  winds  up  by  a  proviso,  that  where  he  is  not  proceeded 
against  as  a  pirate  he  is  not  to  be  free — the  statute  did  not  interfere 
with  the  right  to  indict  him  as.  a  person  committing  a  treason  on  the 
high  seas;  under  what  statute?  Under  the  statute  of  28  Henry  VIII., 
and  the  misapprehension  of  that  reading  in  The  King  v.  Vauphan  was  that 
if  you  read  it  as  making  a  person  liable  to  be  charged  with  high  treason 
without  the  realm,  as  Lord  Alverstone  did,  as  being  applicable  to  solid 
ground  outside  the  realm,  it  would  be  an  authority  against  me,  but  he 
is  not  to  be  tried  for  high  treason  on  solid  ground.  The  only  statute 
that  would  refer  to  that  is  not  the  statute  of  28  Henry  VIII.,  which  you 
are  at  liberty  to  proceed  under  by  the  saving  clause  of  the  Act  of  1745 ; 
it  is  the  statute  with  regard  to  the  foreign  treasons  passed  in  35  Henry 
VIII.,  and  passed,  I  submit,  to  deal,  not  with  the  statute  of  Edward,  but 
to  deal  with  the  infinite  multitude  of  what  I  may  term  fancy  treasons  that 
had  grown  up  by  special  statutes  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  which  ren- 
dered it  extremely  difficult  to  say  from  day  to  day  whether  one's  opinions 
were  loyal  or  treasonable.  Owing  to  the  number  of  statutes  in  the  reign 
of  Henry  VIII.  creating  special  offences  for  treason,  that  was  followed 
in  35  Henry  VIII.  by  a  statute  of  foreign  treasons  enabling  for  the  first 
time  foreign  treasons  abroad,  of  which  I  think  at  the  time  there  were  a 
multitude,  to  be  tried  within  the  realm  of  England. 

Now  I  will  refer  to  the  statute  of  1745,  and  I  think  it  bears  out 
exactly  what  I  said. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICBI — It  seems  extraordinary  to  contemplate 
that  according  to  the  common  law  of  this  country  if  a  person  committed 
this  offence  abroad,  and  he  could  be  got  within  the  realm,  you  could 
not  prosecute  him  as  a  traitor. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — According  to  the  case  in  Dyer,  if  that  be  an  authority, 
until  the  statute  was  passed  enabling  you  to  do  so,  you  could  not  do  it. 
84 


Motion  to   Quash  Indictment. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  wanted  to  look  at  that  case,  but  I  have 
not  looked  at  it,  because  you  said  you  would  refer  to  it  later. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  am  sure  that  Lord  Coke  in  dealing  in  the  Third 
Institutes  with  piracy  says  practically  the  same  thing,  if  I  may  turn  to 
the  Third  Institute  again.  I  am  not  quite  sure  Lord  Coke  does  not  say 
the  same  thing  under  the  head  of  "  Piracy  "  in  chapter  49.  He  says  on 
page  113  (this  is  apropos  of  piracy),  "  Treason  done  out  of  the  realm 
"  is  declared  to  be  treason  by  the  statute  of  25  Edward  III." — that  is  the 
one  we  are  construing  here — "and  yet  at  the  making  of  this  Act  of  28 
"  Henry  VIII.  it  wanted  trial  at  common  law."  So,  according  to  Lord 
Coke,  he  points  out  at  page  113  that  until  28  Henry  VIII.  these  acts  were 
not  triable  at  common  law. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  is  a  very  strong  statement  of  the  law 
against  you  by  Lord  Coke. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — It  begins  by  the  assumption  that  treason 
outside  the  realm  was  triable. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — No,  but  treason  done  out  of  the  realm  is  declared  to 
be  treason. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICEI — By  the  statute. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — By  the  statute  that  we  are  discussing.  I  have  Lord 
Coke's  authority  against  me,  and  I  have  sought  to  face  that  candidly. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — You  have  Sir  Matthew  Hale  and  the  obiter 
dictum  in  the  House  of  Lords  against  you. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  obiter  dictum  is  not  the  expression  of  an  opinion, 
but  purports  to  be  the  quotation  from  something. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE! — Mr.  Justice  Willes  is  delivering  the  judg- 
ment of  all  the  judges  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  if  you  look  at  the 
judgment  of  the  House  of  Lords,  Lord  Cairns  agrees  with  every  word,  with 
all  the  opinions  and  views  expressed. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — If  that  establishes  that  the  quotation  is  correct  I  cer- 
tainly would  have  no  case,  but  it  is  a  quotation.  He  purports  to  quote 
the  statute,  and  if  that  was  the  statute  I  should  not  have  to  trouble  your 
lordships. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — What  do  you  mean  by  "purported  to  quote 
the  statute?  " 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — It  is  in  inverted  commas. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — He  is  saying  what  he  thinks  the  Act  enacts ; 
it  is  almost  incredible  that  he  made  the  mistake  of  omitting  words  from 
the  statute  when  he  purported  to  quote  it  correctly  just  before.  If  he 
purported  to  say  what  the  statute  really  enacted  and  put  it  in  inverted 
commas,  then  it  would  be  against  you. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — It  would.  He  quotes  the  words  accurately  in  the 
immediately  preceding  passage.  In  the  case  of  The  Queen  v.  Mulcahy 
that  observation  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  case.  It  points  to  the  fact 
that  at  common  law  there  surely  could  not  be  known  an  offence  for  which 
a  man  could  not  be  tried,  and  Lord  Coke  himself  states  that  although 
treason  done  out  of  the  realm  is  declared  to  be  treason  by  statute,  a  statute 
can  create  any  offence,  but  common  law  was  certainly  not  cognisant  of 
offences  that  it  could  not  try  itself,  and  yet  at  the  making  of  this  Act  of 
28  Henry  VIII.  it  wanted  trial  at  common  law. 

85 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 


Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — Doe®  not  the  statute  of  35  Henry  VIII.  assume 
that  certain  treasons  at  all  events  committed  abroad  were  triable  here  1 

Mr.   SULLIVAN — Certainly. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — What  are-  they,  do  you  say ;  what  treasons  do  you 
say  are  triable  here? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — To  go  through  the  various  statutes  of  Henry  VIII. 
would  wander,  to  some  extent,  when  one  recollects  that  within  a  very 
short  period  it  was  enacted  by  statute  to  be  treason  anywhere  at  any  time 
or  at  any  place  so  far  as  I  read  the  statute,  first  to  believe  that  Elizabeth 
was  legitimate,  and  you  are  given  every  permutation  and  combination  of 
the  King's  views  on  subjects  such  as  that,  also  view®  on  ecclesiastical 
subjects,  and  view®  on  theology.  Offences  of  all  sorts  were  created  and 
made  treason  under  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII.  The  history  of  treason 
in  that  reign  is  the  most  interesting  thing,  and  I  should  have  thought 
that  38  Henry  VIII.  was  a  climax  to  enable  a  great  number  of  these 
offences  to  be  tried  which  had  been  created  in  his  reign,  and  had  not  been 
tried  because  the  common  law  had  no  cognisance  of  them  if  they  were  out 
of  the  realm,  and  they  certainly  could  not  be  done  out  of  the  realm, 
according  to  the  terms1  of  a  great  number  of  statutes.  The  35  Henry  VIII. 
was  passed  with  reference  to  treason  as  a  very  large  code — or  not  a  code — 
because  he  is  substituting  one  for  another,  but,  at  all  events,  combining 
a  large  number  of  statutes  creating  offences  which  could  be  punished  as 
treason,  though  committed  out  of  the  realm,  and  would  enable  them  to  be 
dealt  with,  provision  for  which  did  not  exist  if  Lord  Coke  is  right  in  his 
appreciation  of  it,  and  if  the  opinions  of  the  judges  were  right  as  late  as 
Philip  and  Mary. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — That  is  what  I  wrasi  putting  to  you,  that  the  only 
object  of  the  Act  of  35  Henry  VIII.  is,  as  the  words  say,  "  Forasmuch 
"  as  some  doubts  and  questions  have  been  moved,  that  certain  kinds 
"of  treasons"  can  be  tried  here.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  making 
those,  if  I  may  adopt  the  phrase  you  used,  eccentric  forms  of  treasons 
which  you  have  just  been  referring  to. 

Mr.   SULLIVAN — When  committed  out  of  the  realm. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — For  the  purpose  of  making  them  triable.  Does 
not  that  enactment  assume  that  that  which  had  always  been  triable  at 
common  law  was  already  triable. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  recital  of  the  statute,  I  submit,  shows  that  the 
cases  could  not  have  been  tried,  because  the  recitals  show  it ;  it  deals  with 
all  matters  declared  to  be  treason. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — It  begins  by  saying  that  "  Doubts  and  questions 
"  have  been  moved,  that  certain  kinds  of  treasons,  misprisions,  and  con- 
"  cealments  of  treasons  done,  perpetrated,  or  committed  out  of  the  King's 
"  Majesty's  realm  of  England,"  might  by  the  common  law  be  inquired 
into  within  the  realm ;  that  is  the  only  doubt  that  has  arisen.  I  should 
rather  assume  that  when  no  doubt  has  ever  arisen  what  was  known  to  be 
treason  by  the  common  law  was  already  triable. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — "  That  all  manner  of  offences  being  already  made  and 
"declared " 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — I  think  you  must  begin  earlier. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — "  Forasmuch  as  some  doubts  and  questions  have  been 


Motion  to   Quash  Indictment. 

"  moved,  that  certain  kinds  of  treasons,  misprisions,  and  concealments  of 
"treasons  done,  perpetrated,  or  committed  out  of  the  King's  Majesty's 
"  common  laws  of  this  realm  cannot  be  inquired  of,  heard,  and  determined 
"within  this  his  said  realm  of  England." 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — That  is  only  the  certain  kinds  of  treason  there 
referred  to. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Might  I  submit  the  certain  kinds  of  treasons  are  to 

be  found  reading  on,  "  For  a  plain  remedy  order  and  declaration  therein 

"  to  be  had  and  made" — that  is  with  reference  to  those  matters — "  be 

"it  enacted   by   authority  of  this  present   Parliament,    that   all   manner 

"  of  offences,  being  already  made  and  declared,  or  hereafter  to  be  made 

'  or  declared  by  any  of  the  laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm,  to  be  treasons1, 

'  misprisions   of  treasons,    or  concealments   of  treasons,    and  done,    per- 

'  petrated,   or  committed,  or  hereafter  to  be  done,  perpetrated,  or  com- 

'  mitted  by  any  persons  out  of  this  realm   of  England,    shall  be  from 

'  henceforth  inquired  of,  heard,  and  determined  before  the  King's  justices 

"of  his  Bench,   for  pleas  to  be  holden  before  himself."        That  shows 

it  was  all  triable  by  the  King's  Bench. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — That  only  sweeps  them  all  into  that  statute. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Yes,  it  does. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  is  from  that  statute  that  the  King's 
Bench  derives  the  authority  for  trying  all  treasons  committed  abroad. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — If  such  there  be. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  is  for  that  reason  that  this  case  is  being 
tried  here. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — If  such  there  be  ;  anything  that  is  treason ;  it  creates 
no  new  treason  •  it  is  mere  procedure.  The  importance  is  that  the 
necessity  for  the  statute  was  that  the  King's  Bench,  which  was  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  common  law,  had  no  jurisdiction  till  it  got  the  statute,  so 
says  Dyer,  and  if,  therefore,  you  have  no  jurisdiction  till  you  get  a  statute, 
I  submit  that  that  is  conclusive  that  the  offence  did  not  exist  at  common 
law. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — Just  follow  the  argument  you  put  with  the 
point  that  Mr.  Justice  Avory  puts  to  you.  Your  argument  is  that  it  could 
not  be  treason  outside  the  realm,  because  it  was  not  triable  by  the  King's 
Bench.  That  is  as  I  understand  your  argument.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.   SULLIVAN — At  common  law. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — That  statute  says  expressly  that  there  are 
treasons  abroad  which  cannot  be  tried  here,  and  which  therefore  the  statute 
enacts  shall  be  tried  here,  and  therefore  if  your  argument  is  correct  there 
would  be  no  treason  abroad  at  that  time,  because  the  very  ones  they 
are  dealing  with  here  and  saying  are  treasons  are  things  which  they  say 
cannot  be  triable  at  law. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — At  the  time  of  35  Henry  VIII.  I  stated  there  were  a 
great  number  of  treasons. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — If  they  could  not  be  treasons  when  committed 
abroad  because  the  King's  Bench  could  not  try  them  the  whole  principle 
of  the  Act  is  wrong. 

Mr.  SULUVAN — I  did  not  say  that,  for,  as  I  stated,  the  common  law 
could  have  no  knowledge  of  crimes  that  it  could  not  investigate,  but  the 
statute  could  create  a  crime  in  any  part  of  the  world,  and  the  statute 

87 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 

might  provide  for  this  trial  if  it  provides  that  anything  already  made  and 
declared  by  any  law  or  statute  of  this  realm  to  be  treason  may  be  tried. 
It  is  not  that  the  statute  would  not  make  it  a  treason  because  it  could 
not  be  tried,  but  I  suggest  common  law  knew  no  treason  that  it,  at  all  events, 
could  not  try.  That  is  my  argument  which  I  submit  to  your  lordships. 
The  importance  of  that  with  regard  to  the  argument  on  the  Act  of  1745 
is  that  the  proviso  at  the  end  is  not  a  proviso  as  read  by  the  Court  in 
The  King  v.  Lynch. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — In  Archbold,  at  the  foot  of  that  statute,  it 
goes  on  as  to  the  mode  of  trial  of  treasons  committed  without  the  realm 
before  the  passing  of  this  statute,  see  2  Hawkins,  chapter  25,  section  48, 
and  they  refer  to  Plait's  case,  1  Leach,  page  168.  You  seem  to  have 
Hawkins  against  you. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  last  part  of  the  statement  on  that  page  is  in  my 
favour.  To  enforce  my  argument  as  to  the  common  law  I  will  refer  to 
the  section  relied  upon  by  the  Crown  in  the  Act  of  1745 — "  Provided  that 
"  nothing  in  this  Act  contained  shall  be  construed  to  extend  to  prevent 
' '  any  persons  guilty  of  any  of  the  said  crimes,  who  shall  not  be  tried 
"  according  to  this  Act,  from  being  tried  for  high  treason  within  this 
"  realm,  according  to  the  aforesaid  act  of  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  King 
"Henry  the  Eighth." 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — Are  you  reading  the  statute  of  5  and  6 
Edward? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — No,  the  Act  of  18  George  II. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  1745  Act. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Yes,  in  the  shorthand  notes  that  is  being  cited. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — Have  you  looked  at  Plait's  case  in  1  Leach? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  have.  I  am  going  to  refer  to  it.  The  King  v. 
Plait  was  an  application  for  habeas  corpus. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — That  is  quite  consistent  with  good  law  being 
laid  down. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  best  of  law  is  consistent  with  habeas  corpus.  In 
that  case  it  does  not  appear  what  the  matter  charged  was.  It  was  high 
treason.  Now  within  the  words  of  the  statute  of  Edward  that  we  are 
discussing  the  first  section  might  be  construed  in  terms  to  extend  to  com- 
passing the  King's  death  anywhere  in  the  world,  and  the  terms  are  wide 
enough  to  cover  it.  All  that  I  am  arguing  is  that  where  the  terms  of 
the  statute  are  not  wide  enough  to  cover  it,  it  could  not  be  extended,  and 
accordingly  we  do  not  know  what  the  charge  against  Platt  was  except 
that  it  was  high  treason.  The  decision  arose  on  warrant,  and  warrant 
only. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — Listen  to-  thisi  passage  from  the  report.  "  This 
"  warrant  therefore  contains  sufficient  certainty  to  show  that  the  high 
"  treason  which  it  charges  the  prisoner  with  having  committed  was,  in  fact, 
"  committed  out  of  the  realm  of  England.  It  was  the  ancient  opinion, 
"  that  the  species  of  treason  which  consists,  by  25  Edward  III.,  chapter  2, 
"in  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  might  be  tried,  before  the  statute 
"35  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  2,  within  the  kingdom,  by  the  rules  of  the 
"  common  law,  though  the  aid  and  comfort  was*  afforded  without  the 
"  realm."  That  is  a  direct  authority  that  that  particular  treason  can  be 


Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

tried  -within  the  realm,  although  the  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemy  is  given 
without  the  realm. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — There  are  a  number  of  cases  in  which  it  has  been  done 
in  this  sense  when  the  offender  is  within  the  realm.  That  was  the  case 
of  The  King  v.  Wheldon  ;  where  the  offender  is  within  the  realm,  he  may 
aid  and  comfort  the  enemy  outside  the  realm,  and  be  guilty  of  the  offence 
charged;  that  is  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice  Finucane. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — He  may  be  within  the  realm,  although 
giving  the  aid  and  comfort  without  the  realm. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Yes,  the  offence  may  be  committed  within  the  realm, 
he  being  there,  the  offender. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE; — He  may  send  information. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — He  may. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — That  was  Plait's  case. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Plait's  case  does  not  show  what  he  isi  charged  with 
at  all.  He  was  charged  with  treason  at  Savannah.  The  question  for 
decision  in  Plait's  case  was,  could  the  Court  deal  with  him,  and  they 
held  they  could  not,  because  they  were  not  the  Court  to  try  him.  They 
held  they  were  not  the  Court  under  35  Henry  VIII.,  and  therefore 
application  for  habeas  corpus  should  be  made  to  the  Court  that  could  try 
him;  that  contention  did  prevail,  so  that  was  the  net  decision  of  Platt's 


Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — The  decision  was  they  refused  the  habeas  corpus. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — They  did ;  they  said  they  had  no  jurisdiction  to  enter 
into  the  matter  at  all;  they  were  not  the  right  Court  to  have  cognisance 
of  the  matter,  because  they  were  not  the  Court  within  35  Henry  VIII. 
Now,  it  is  a  most  significant  fact  that,  whatever  observations  you  may  find, 
you  cannot  find  in  any  reported  oases  a  prosecution  under  the  statute  in 
which  the  point  is  decided  other  than  The  King  v.  Lynch.  The  King  v. 
Lynch  proceeds  on  The  King  v.  Vaughan  expressly ;  your  lordships  are 
satisfied  that  that  supposed  view  of  the  judgment  disappears,  and  with 
the  foundation  the  edifice  goes  too. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Supposing  you  put  your  pen  through  The 
King  v.  Lynch,  assume  that  you  are  entitled  to  do  that,  at  any  rate, 
in  this  Court,  which  is  a  doubtful  proposition,  considering  that  we  are  a 
Court  of  co-ordinate  jurisdiction,  but  assuming  you  could  get  back  to 
the  words  of  the  statute,  everything  must  turn  upon  the  words  of  the 
statute. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — That  is  all  I  am  arguing. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  whole  point  is  whether  the  word  "else- 
''  where"  governs  "aid  and  comfort"  or  governs  "adhering  to  the 
"  King's  enemies." 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  should  not  have  kept  your  lordships  for  the  length 
of  time  I  have  done  were  not  it  that  I  thought  that  there  stood  in  my 
way  of  coming  down  to  the  words  of  the  statute  what  appeared  to  be  the 
authorities  which  required  to  be  analysed  as  giving  the  words  of  the 
statute  a  meaning  different  to  what  they  should  ordinarily  bear.  That 
has  been  the  point  of  my  argument,  and  is  my  apology  for  taking  up  so 
much  time. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  do  not  think  you  have  occupied  too  much 

89 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


time.  Supposing  you  have  done  what  you  set  out  to  do — this  is  what  I 
mean — you  still  get  back  to  the  statute. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  submit  the  words  of  the  statute  themselves,  unless 
you  are  driven  by  authority  to  give  them  some  different  meaning,  and  I 
submit  you  are  not,  are  reasonably  plain  and  absolutely  clear  with 
regard  to  the  offence  charged,  otherwise  may  I  point  out  this,  that  if  the 
words  of  the  statute  mean  the  charge  that  I  have  read  out  in  this  indict- 
ment, why  is  it  that  they  are  not  set  out  as  being  the  charge?  The 
fact  that  the  statute  is  not  quoted,  and  the  fact  that  something  is  alleged 
that  is  not  in  terms  within  the  statute,  is  the  foundation  of  my  argument, 
that  that  which  is  alleged  here,  not  being  the  wording  of  the  statute,  is, 
in  fact,  a  contortion  of  the  statute. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  follow. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  words  are,  "  If  a  man  do  levy  war  against  our 
"  Lord  the  King  in  his  realm,  or  be  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  in 
"his  realm  giving  them  aid  and  comfort  in  the  realm  or  elsewhere." 
Have  not  the  words  "in  the  realm"  the  same  significance  in  both  con- 
texts? The  word  "  or  "  occurs  before  the  words  "  be  adherent  ";  there 
is  no  suggestion  of  the  word  "or"  before  the  words  "giving  aid  and 
"  comfort."  Levying  war  and  adhering  are  two  offences,  not  three. 
The  construction  sought  to  be  placed  on  the  statute  by  the  Crown  provides 
three  offences  out  of  these  two  clauses  I  have  read,  because  a  man  may 
be  charged  with  either  being  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his  realm, 
or  on  the  construction  of  the  statute  contended  for,  charged  with  giving 
them  aid  and  comfort  in  the  realm  or  elsewhere. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — That  does  not  necessarily  follow;  it  may  be 
that  there  are  two  offences;  the  first  one,  if  a  man  do  levy  war  against 
our  Lord  the  King  in  his  realm  or  elsewhere,  and  the  second  offence,  the 
word  "elsewhere"  governing  both,  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his 
realm,  giving  them  aid  and  comfort  in  his  realm  or  elsewhere. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  statute  has  been  in  consideration  for  a  very  long 
time,  and  I  am  not  aware  that  that  construction  of  "  elsewhere  "  applied 
to  "within  the  realm"  in  regard  to  levying  war  has  ever  before  been 
suggested  in  any  case. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — It  may  not  be  necessary  to  do-  it,  but  it  does 
not  follow  that  it  makes  three  offences. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  agree.  My  only  apology  for  not  at  the  moment 
answering  your  lordship's  observation  is  that,  so  far  as  I  had  been  able 
to  investigate  the  statute  and  read  it,  at  the  moment  I  do  not  remember 
having  that  opinion  (suggested  to  me  before,  or  have  I  noticed  it. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — It  may  be  it  only  makes  two,  if  you  are 
correct,  one  levying  war  against  the  King  in  his  realm,  and  the  other  by 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his  realm  or  elsewhere.  The  definition 
of  adhering  is  giving  them  aid  and  comfort  in  the  realm  or  elsewhere. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  whole  question  really  is  whether  you 
read  the  words  "aiding  and  comforting"  as  if  they  were  in  a  bracket. 
If  you  do  that,  Coke,  Hale,  Hawkins,  and  Fitzherbert  are  all  of  them 
right ;  if  you  do  not  do  that  then  there  is  a  considerable  foundation  for 
your  argument  that  you  must  read  the  words  "  or  elsewhere,"  as  if  they 
were  the  alternative  of  giving  aid  and  comfort  within  the  realm.  If 
you  do  read  them,  on  the  other  hand,  as  laying  down  that  the  offence 
90 


Motion  to  Quash  Indictment. 

is  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  within  his  realm  or  elsewhere,  you  give 
full  meaning  to  the  words  "giving  aid  and  comfort"  as  words  which 
are  describing  and  manifesting  the  intent  with  which  the  statute  is  there 
dealing.  Giving  aid  and  comfort  as  manifesting  the  intent  would  apply 
both  to  adherence  to  the  King' si  enemies  within  the  realm,  and  to 
adherence  to  the  King's  enemies  without  the  realm. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  agree,  if  you  deal  with  it  on  the  basis  of  being 
adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his  realm,  and  they  were  simply 
defined  as  being  giving  to  them  aid  and  comfort  in  the  realm  or  elsewhere ; 
that  is  one  construction,  but  it  is  a  totally  different  construction ;  we  are 
not  dealing  with  brackets. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE^ — There  is  authority  for  saying  we  have  no 
right  to  look  at  brackets.  We  decided  that  in  this  Court,  or  at  least 
expressed  an  opinion  after  hearing  the  authorities  in  this  Court  quite 
recently,  and  there  is  the  authority  of  Lord  Esher  in  the  Court  of  Appeal 
for  saying  you  must  disregard  brackets. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  construction  must  be  on  the  express  terms  of 
the  statute  as  they  stand.  You  do  not  attribute  to  a  statute  words  that 
are  repugnant  unless  you  are  driven  to  it;  you  do  not  attribute  to  a 
statute  that  it  is  tautological;  you  merely  read  it  and  give  effect  to  the 
statute  as  being  couched  in  the  necessary  terms  to  expound  its  own 
meaning.  If  therefore  you  have  to  expound  the  statute  by  its  own  terms, 
I  submit  that  it  is  clear  from  the  Norman  French  that  the  giving  them 
aid  and  comfort  refers  solely  to  the  man,  the  person  named  in  the  prior 
part  of  the  statute,  and  the  person  who  at  the  date  of  the  statute  had  to 
be  within  the  realm,  and  therefore  to  be  tried.  Looking  at  the  Norman 
French,  according  to  the  grammatical  construction,  it  is  the  person  who 
shall  be  adherent,  giving  them  aid  and  comfort,  wherever  they  may  be, 
adherent  to  the  King's1  enemies  in  his  realm. 

The  LORD  CHEEP  JUSTICE — The  Norman  French  does  not  help  you; 
it  brings  you  back  to  the  same  point.  I  have  looked  at  it,  and  it  leaves  you 
just  where  you  were. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — It  is  perfectly  clear,  I  submit,  on  the  grammatical 
construction,  within  his  realm  must  be  given  effect  to  in  that  context 
there,  and  "donnant"  is  not  a  description  of  the  offence  committed, 
it  is  only  a  description  of  the  overt  acts  by  which  it  may  be  proved. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  difficulty  which  I  always  feel  isi  that 
you  are  arguing  it  before  us  as  if  it  was  a  case  of  first  impression.  We 
have  to  deal  with  it  with  the  authority  of  all  these  great  authorities  of  the 
common  law,  who  all  say  the  law  of  treason  is  applicable  outside  the 
King's  realm. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  quite  recognise  it. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — So  far  as  I  know — I  have  no  doubt  you  have 
had  the  opportunity  of  far  greater  search  than  I  have  been  able  to  make — I 
know  of  no  authority  in  any  text-book  in  your  favour. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Nor  do  I. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  is  a  strong  construction  when  we  are 
dealing  with  authorities  such  as  Coke,  Hale,  Hawkins,  and  Fitzherbert. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — What  I  submit  is  a  matter  of  great  importance  is 
this,  that  a  text-book  is  an  excellent  exposition  of  the  common  law,  when 
you  require  what  was  the  common  law  received  prior  to  the  law  regulating 

91 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 


the  affairs  of  man  and  man  at  a  distant  date,  for  that  is  the  common 
law,  but  text-books  are  no  authority  on  the  construction  of  a  statute  unless 
they  are  vouched  by  judicial  decisions  that  that  construction  is  right.  The 
statute  is  the  primary  expounder  of  its  own  meaning;  the  text-book  is 
an  excellent  exposition  of  what  was  the  received  opinion  of  lawyers  after 
the  statute. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  do  not  want  to  interrupt  you — I  am  afraid 
we  have  been  doing  so  a  good  deal  lately  for  the  purpose  of  elucidating  the 
point — but  you  must  not  take  me  as  assenting  to  that  proposition.  I 
cannot  myself  assent  to  the  position  that  when  you  find  all  the  great 
authorities  on  the  law  of  England  for  three  or  four  centuries  stating  that 
the  law  of  England  is  laid  down  in  a  particular  statute,  and  is  so  and  so, 
that  we  shall  pay  no  attention  to  those  words,  and  disregard  them,  unless  you 
can  find  something  which  shows  that  those  opinions  are  entirely  wrong. 
I  think  we  are  bound  to  pay  great  attention  to  them  myself. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  quite  appreciate  that  view.  What  I  wanted  to 
convey  was,  if  these  authorities  are  to  be  regarded,  or  if  the  terms  of  the 
statute  are  to  be  regarded,  we  have  to  go  back  to  the  terms  of  the  statute 
to  get  the  construction,  and  if  the  proper  construction  of  the  statute  is 
what  I  suggest,  then  it  is  the  words  of  the  statute  you  must  pay  attention 
to.  I  put  it  no  more  than  that. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  quite  agree  with  that. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — There  are  nine  cases  on  this  section  that  we  have  been 
discussing,  I  hope  not  at  too  great  a  length,  and  in  every  case  the  dis- 
tinction has  been,  if  he  could  be  said  within  the  jurisdiction  to  aid  the 
enemy  without. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — May  not  the  reason  be  that  you  do  not  get 
cases  of  treason  or  adhering  to  the  enemy  without  the  realm  reported  in 
our  text-books,  because  when  a  person  commits  treason  without  the  realm 
he  takes  care  to  stay  there? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Yes. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Unless  you  get  them  within  the  realm  you 
cannot  get  them. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  must  apologise  for  occupying  so  long. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — You  have  not  given  us  the  2  Dyer  yet. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — We  will  have  that  to-morrow. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  have  been  applying  for  the  2  Dyer  but  I  have  not  had 
it  yet. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTIC?E— Anyhow  we  will  deal  with  that  to-morrow. 

Adjourned  till  to-morrow  morning  at  10.15  o'clock. 


92 


Motion  to   Quash  Indictment. 


Third  Day— Wednesday,  28th  June,  1916. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — My  lords,  I  had  concluded  my  observations  when  the 
Court  rose. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  were  going  to  call  attention  to  the  case 
in  the  2  Dyer. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Yes,  but  will  your  lordship  allow  one  of  my  friends 
to  go  on? 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Certainly. 

Mr.  MORGAN — May  it  please  your  lordships ;  in  this  case  I  should  like 
to  add  a  few  words. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — There  is  a  difficulty  about  this;  by  the 
statute  there  are  two  counsel  assigned ;  if  it  is  merely  to  call  attention  to 
that  part  of  the  argument  which  had  already  been  dealt  with  by  you, 
merely  to  the  case  in  2  Dyer  we  will  hear  Mr.  Morgan  as  amicus  curice  in 
the  matter. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Might  I  suggest  the  true  reading  of  the  statute  is 
really  to  provide  for  the  defence  of  prisoners  in  certain  trials,  and  one  of 
them  is  a  trial  for  treason.  There  are  provisions  in  the  statute  enabling 
counsel  to  be  assigned  to  the  defence  of  those  charged  for  capital  offences 
unable  to  defend  themselves.  Those  who  do  defend  themselves,  I  submit, 
are  in  no  worse  position  by  the  statute  in  not  taking  the  counsel  assigned 
to  them,  in  the  sense  of  assigned  counsel  only,  than  one  unable  to 
assign  his  own  counsel;  he  should  not  be  in  a  worse  position  on  the 
reading  of  the  statute,  and  I  would  ask  your  lordships  to  adopt  that  view 
of  the  statute. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Whatever  the  view  may  be  as  to  that,  it 
is  unnecessary  to  determine  it,  because  we  will  hear  Mr.  Morgan,  reserv- 
ing that  point,  and  treat  him  as  amicus  curice  in  the  matter. 

Mr.    SULLIVAN — I   am  very  much  indebted  to   your   lordships. 

Mr.  MORGAN — May  it  please  your  lordships,  my  learned  friend,  Mr. 
Sullivan,  drew  attention  yesterday  to  the  opinion  of  the  judges  recorded 
in  2  Dyer,  131b,  in  the  2  Philip  and  Mary.  I  submit  the  language  of 
the  charge  in  that  case  is  most  emphatic  and  does  not  admit  of  any 
ambiguity.  It  says,  "  No  offence  of  treason  committed  out  of  the 
"  realm  was  triable  here  by  the  course  of  the  common  law."  I  submit 
that  no  lawyer  at  that  time  could  possibly  have  come  to  any  other  con- 
clusion. I  think  your  lordship  put  the  question  yesterday  as  to  whether 
or  not  we  held  that  adhering  to  the  King's  enemy  without  the  realm 
was  not  an  offence  at  common  law.  I  submit  certainly  until 
the  statute  of  35  Henry  VIII.,  and  as  we  contend  after  it, 
it  was  not  an  offence  at  common  law.  The  authorities  on  the  point  that 
an  offence  committed  outside  the  King's  realm  and  dominions  is  not  an 
offence  at  common  law,  and  if  it  is  an  offence  is  not  triable  here,  are 

93 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 


overwhelming,    and  no   mediaeval  lawyer   would   come  to   any  other   con- 
clusion. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  say  they  are  overwhelming,  but 
where  are  they?  According  to  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII.,  it  seems  to 
me-  plain  that  there  were  certain  forms  of  treason  which  undoubtedly 
then  existed,  and  which  were  offences  of  treason  committed  without  the 
realm;  that  is  clear  from  the  statute. 

Mr.   MORGAN — And  triable  here? 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — No;  there  are  two  separate  points.  What 
I  am  putting  to  you  is  that  there  were  offences  of  treason  committed 
without  the  realm;  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII.  says  so.  I  have  not  the 
exact  language  before  me,  but  it  says  there  are  some  offences  already 
declared  and  those  which  may  be  declared  in  the  future. 

Mr.  MORGAN — But  they  must  have  been  statutory  offences  declared 
by  statute. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — What  I  want  to  know  is,  have  you  con- 
sidered what  those  are? 

Mr.  MORGAN — Yes,  I  have;  one  will  be  compassing  the  King's  death. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  by  statute? 

Mr .   M  ORGAN — Yes . 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Under  which  statute  is  that? 

Mr.  MORGAN — The  25  Edward  III.,  which  contains  no  words 
of  limitation  about  "  within  the  realm  "  as  regards  the  particular  kind 
of  treason. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — What  do  you  say  would  be  the  effect? 
According  to  that  reading  of  the  statute  of  1351,  the  words  "  within  the 
"  realm  "  are  not  there  to  qualify  in  any  way  the  effect  of  the  words 
"  compassing  the  King's  death.''  Then  do  I  understand  your  view  to 
be  that,  notwithstanding  that,  the  offence  would  be  triable  and  punish- 
able if  committed  without  the  realm? 

Mr.   MORGAN — Would  be  or  would  not  be? 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Would  be. 

Mr.   MORGAN— Before  the  35  Henry  VIII.? 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Yes. 

Mr.   MORGAN — No;   certainly  not. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Was  the  offence  created? 

Mr.  MORGAN — That  is  open  to  argument.  I  think  it  may  have  been. 
There  were  no  words  of  limitation  as  regards  "  within  the  realm  "  in 
connection  with  the  definition  of  compassing,  and  therefore  it  was  open 
to  hold  that  Parliament  had  declared  that  as  regards  the  offence  of 
compassing  the  King's  death  the  treason  might  be  committed  out  of  the 
realm;  but  in  the  absence  of  that  declaration  I  do  not  think  the  common 
law  would  have  ever  held  that  it  was  a  crime. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  am  not  satisfied  about  that. 

Mr.  MORGAN — The  authorities  on  that  point,  Stephen  and  Arch- 
bold,  and  the  case  of  The  King  v.  M'Leod,  are  absolutely  clear,  that 
according  to  English  common  law  all  crime  is  local. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  question  is  whether  this  is  not  the  one 
exception;    murder    was   made   an    exception. 
94 


Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Yes,  by  statute;  but  it  was  expressly  said  murder 
wherever  committed.  I  do  not  know,  having  regard  to  the  view  of  trial 
by  jury  taken  by  mediaeval  lawyers,  how  they  could  have  come  to  any 
other  conclusion.  All  offences  by  common  law  must  be  tried  by  a  jury 
of  neighbours;  that  is  the  whole  point  of  the  venue. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  must  not  be  under  the  impression, 
speaking  for  myself,  that  that  satisfies  me,  because  I  called  attention 
yesterday  to  the  passage  in  Hale  which  is  important  upon  the  point  to 
the  contrary. 

Mr.   MORGAN — May  I  ask  that  passage? 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — My  impression  is  it  is  page  169  of  the 
first  volume  of  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown.  It  is  the  reference  to  the  case 
in  the  5  Richard  II.  This  is  what  Sir  Matthew  Hale  says:  "  But  at 
"common  law  he  might  have  been  indicted  in  any  county  of  England, 
"  and  especially  where  the  offender's  lands  lie  if  he  have  any."  That 
is  dealing  with  the  trial  of  foreign  treason;  that  is  adhering  to  the 
King's  enemy  and  also  for  compassing  the  King's  death  without  the 
kingdom.  It  begins:  "  Touching  the  trial  of  high  treason."  That  is 
the  passage  I  read  yesterday. 

Mr.  MORGAN — I  think  that  authority  is  in  the  hands  of  my  learned 
friends,  the  counsel  for  the  Crown;  I  do  not  know  what  they  make  of 
the  passage;  it  is  in  Norman  French  in  Fitzherbert. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  wish  to  bring  to  your  attention  that  there 
is  very  distinct  authority  in  the  plainest  language  to  the  contrary  of 
what  you  were  asserting. 

Mr.  MORGAN — There  seems  very  considerable  doubt  upon  it.  Hawkins, 
in  his  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  refers  to  it  at  page  306. 

Mr.   JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — The  Attorney-General  referred  to  it. 

Mr.  MORGAN — It  is  Hawkins'  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  volume  2,  page 
306,  chapter  25,  section  48:  "It  seems  to  have  been  a  great  doubt 
"  before  the  making  of  the  statute  of  35  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  2,  in  what 
"  manner  and  in  what  place  high  treason  done  out  of  the  realm  was  to 
"be  tried." 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  assumes  the  offence;  the  only  question 
is  how  the  offence  was  to  be  tried. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — Would  you  go  on  with  the  passage? 

Mr.  MORGAN — It  does  not  say  aohering  to  the  King's  enemies;  com- 
passing would  be  high  treason  done  out  of  the  realm. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — I  understood  you  to  say  that  the  words  of 
the  statute  of  Edward  had  made  it  clear  that  compassing  the  King's 
death  outside  the  realm  was  brought  within  the  law  of  treason,  because 
there  were  no  words  "  in  the  realm"  following;  but  before  that  there 
was  no  power  to  try  any  treason. 

Mr.   MORGAN — I  said  before  the  35  Henry  VIII. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — That  is   later  still. 

Mr.  MORGAN — I  said  that  by  the  statute  of  25  Edward  III.  compassing 
might  be  held  to  be  an  offence  anywhere;  it  does  not  say  whether  within 
or  without  the  kingdom. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — Therefore  there  was  no  treason  at  that 

95 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


time,    according  to  you,    before  the  statute  of   Edward   III.,    committed 
outside  the  realm? 

Mr.  MORGAN — I  very  much  doubt  whether  there  was. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGB — What  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  pointed  out  was 
that  that  passage  from  Hawkins  assumed  that  there  are  such  things  as 
treasons  committed  outside  the  realm. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Certainly,  it  comes  between  the  25  Edward  III.  and 
the  35  Henry  VIII.  There  may  have  been  certain  treasons  which, 
though  not  triable  owing  to  defects  of  jurisdiction,  were  none  the  less 
treasons  when  committed  out  of  the  realm ;  but  it  does  not  refer  to  adher- 
ing to  the  King's  enemies;  that  must  refer  to  compassing.  It  proceeds: 
"  For  some  seem  to  have  holden,  that  it  was  triable  only  upon  an  appeal 
"  before  the  constable  and  marshal."  That  is  the  whole  of  our  case. 
All  the  cases  quoted  by  Coke  and  Hale  before  1535,  with  perhaps  this 
one  exception,  were  cases  either  of  military  sentence,  as  Hale  puts  it,  in 
the  High  Court  of  Parliament,  as  he  says  at  volume  1,  page  238:  "  I 
"  know  no  authority  on  the  question  of  treasons  for  other  sentences 
"  than  the  High  Court  of  Parliament  or  the  Constable  and  Marshal." 
The  only  jurisdiction  to  be  exercised  over  treasons  done  without  the  realm 
before  the  35  Henry  VIII.  must  have  been  either  that  jurisdiction  or 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Admiralty. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — That  is  what  some  people  thought.  Read  also 
what  other  people  thought. 

Mr.  MORGAN — "  Others,  that  it  might  be  tried  upon  an  indictment, 
"laying  the  offence  in  any  county  where  the  King  pleased."  I  do  not 
observe  any  authority  for  that. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — Except  Hawkins  is  an  authority. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE; — And  Lord  Coke,  the  authority  of  the 
Institutes. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Coke,  in  the  Institutes,  does  not  give  any  authority 
except  the  single  case  that  Hale  refers  to.  Lord  Coke's  authorities  for 
trial  for  adhering  to  the  King's  enemy  without  the  realm  are  cases  in 
Parliament  which,  as  my  learned  friend  pointed  out  yesterday,  do  not 
recite  the  word  "  treason  "  in  the  statute  at  all,  and  they  are  not  cases 
of  treason:  "  And  others,  that  it  was  triable  by  way  of  indictment  in 
"  that  county  only  wherein  the  offender  had  lands."  I  have  not  had 
time  to  look  up  the  authority  cited,  and  I  do  not  know  what  it  is  :  "  But 
"  surely  it  cannot  reasonably  be  doubted  " — then  he  quotes  Dyer  131b, 
which  is  dead  against  him — "  but  that  it  was  triable  some  way  or  other; 
11  for  it  cannot  be  imagined  that  an  offence  of  such  dangerous  conse- 
"  quence,  and  expressly  within  the  purview  of  25  Edward  III.,  should 
"  be  wholly  dispunishable,  as  it  must  have  been,  if  it  were  no  way 
"  triable."  That  is  simply  an  idle  speculation.  He  throws  up  his 
hands  and  says  he  cannot  understand  how  it  could  have  been  other- 
wise. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Hawkins  was  rather   an  authority. 

Mr.    MORGAN — That  is  a  purely  speculative  passage. 

Mr.   JUSTICE   AVORY — It  is  not   an   uncommon   way  of   expressing  a 
judgment. 
96 


Motion  to  Quash  Indictment. 

Mr.   MORGAN — Can  that  get  over  the  plain  words  of  the  statute? 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  can  hardly  say  that  the  great  masters 
of  the  common  law  in  past  times  simply  threw  up  their  hands  and  specu- 
lated upon  what  was  the  law;  they  are  laying  down  the  law;  at  least 
they  are  stating  what  they,  great  exponents  of  the  law,  thought  was 
the  law  in  those  days. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Can  that  do  away  with  the  plain  words  of  the  statute? 
We  are  dealing  with  the  construction  of  the  statute. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  agree  that  it  cannot. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Nearly  all  these  authorities  are  based  upon  Coke,  regard- 
ing whom  Stephen  says  that  his  authority  on  matters  of  legal  history  is 
absolutely  worthless.  He  speaks  of  his  extraordinarily  disordered  mind, 
and  the  way  in  which  whenever  he  comes  across1  two  words  which  mean  the 
same  thing  he  thinks  they  mean  different  things,  which  is  obviously  what 
he  has  done  with  regard  to  this  clause  of  the  statute. 

Attention  was  drawn  to  the  case  in  Leach  of  The  King  v.  Platt.     I 

admit  that  those  words  of  obiter  dictum  there  used  would  seem  at  first  sight 

to  tell  against  us.     The  words  are — "  It  was  the  ancient  custom  " — I  do 

not  think  any  authorities  are  given — "  that  the  species  of  treason  which 

"consists  by  25  Edward  III.,  chapter  2,  in  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies, 

'  might  be  tried,  before  the  statute  35  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  2,  within  the 

'  kingdom,  by  the  rules  of  the  common  law,  though  the  aid  and  comfort 

'  was  afforded  without  the  realm,  but  that  every  other  species  of  treason 

'committed  out  of  the  realm  must  be  tried  in  the  place  where  it  was 

'  committed,  or  under  the  provisions  of  that  Act  of  Parliament."     Well, 

all  I  can  say  is,  in  the  first  place,  that  passage  is  directly  contradicted 

by  the  authority  in  131b  of  Dyer. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — The  case  in  Dyer  is  not  a  judgment  delivered  in 
open  Court  after  argument ;  it  is  an  opinion  expressed  by  some  judges  who 
met  together  at  Serjeants'  Inn. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Quite  so.  I  should  have  thought  the  opinion  of  the 
judges  who  met  together  in  Serjeants'  Inn  would  outweigh  the  opinion, 
for  instance,  of  Sir  Edward  Coke  writing  in  his  library  and  quoting 
authorities  which  it  is  evident  he  had  never  read. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — You  are  assuming  two  facts  of  which  there  is  no 
proof,  either  that  he  wrote  them  in  his  library  or  that  he  did  not  know 
what  he  was  talking  about. 

Mr.  MORGAN — My  learned  friend,  I  think,  proved  that  yesterday  by 
his  quotation  from  the  Rolls  of  Parliament  which  Coke  cites  and  which  do 
not  bear  him  out.  I  think  that  passage  in  The  King  v.  Platt  is  capable  of 
an  interpretation  which  is  not  inconsistent  either  with  Dyer  or  with  the 
statute  of  the  35  Henry  VIII. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — In  the  case  in  Dyer  what  was  being  discussed 
was  how  the  case  was  to  be  tried,  not  whether  the  offence  had  been 
committed. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Yes. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — The  point  for  discussion  there  was  whether  or 

not  the  statute  of  Philip  and  Mary  had  repealed  the  provisions  for  trial 

under  the  statutes  of  Henry.    That  was  the  direct  question  for  consideration. 

I  have  not  had  the  report  before  me  till  now,  and  I  may  be  wrong  with 

H  97 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


regard  to  it.  That  does  not  lay  down  what  you  read  shortly  to  us — "  And 
"it  seems  that  notwithstanding  this,  the  statute  35  Henry  VIII.,  chapter 
"2,  is  in  force,  because  no  offence  of  treason  committed  out  of  the  realm 
"  was  triable  here  by  the  course  of  the  common  law,  therefore  this  statute 
"  enlarges  the  power  and  authority  of  the  trials  of  the  realm  in  this  point." 
That  is  the  passage  you  rely  upon.  It  goes  on — "  But  for  treason  committed 
"  in  a  foreign  country,  and  triable  in  the  British  realm " — that  is  the 
King's  Bench — "  or  in  any  county  at  the  pleasure  of  the  King,  by  statute 
"  33  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  23,  it  seems  otherwise." 

Mr.  MORGAN — Yes,  since  the  statute ;  that  is  my  whole  point. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  statute  of  33  Henry  VIII.? 

Mr.  MORGAN — No,  the  statute  of  35  Henry  VIII. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — No,  it  is  33  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  23, 
apparently. 

Mr.  MORGAN — The  point  is,  the  authority  is  purely  statutory. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — The  real  point  they  were  discussing  was  whether 
the  statute  of  Philip  and  Mary  had  repealed  the  provisions  of  35  Henry 
VIII. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Yes,  but  none  the  less  the  statement  is  perfectly  clear 
and  emphatic. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  difficulty  is  if  you  look  for  authority 
there  seems  none.  The  references  are  to  Coke's  Institutes  and  to  Hawkins' 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  the  two  authorities  to  which  we  have  been  referring. 

Mr.  MORGAN — No,  this  opinion  was  delivered  before  Coke  lived.  It 
is  in  the  reign  of  Philip  and  Mary.  These  annotations  are  added  by  the 
author  of  the  reports. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — They  are  annotations  with  reference  to  it. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Yes,  but  one  had  no  right  to  import  them. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  reason  I  was  referring  to  it  isi  that, 
apart  from  that,  I  do  not  know  what  authority  there  is  for  the  proposition. 

Mr.    MORGAN — What  proposition? 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  one  mentioned  by  the  judges. 

Mr.  MORGAN — There  is  the  whole  authority  of  the  doctrine  of  venue  in 
the  common  law. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — The  extraordinary  thing  is  what  was 
endeavoured  to  be  deduced  from  that  by  Mr.  Sullivan  was  if  it  could  not 
be  tried  in  this  country  it  could  not  exist,  and  the  other  sense  in  which 
you  are  quoting  it  is,  supposing  the  offence  exists,  you  say  it  cannot  be 
tried. 

Mr.  MORGAN — That  is  not  the  point  I  am  addressing  myself  to.  I 
am  dealing  with  the  point  that  it  could  be  and  was  tried  before  the  35 
Henry  VIII.  As  to  the  point  put  by  Hale,  I  say  that  this  statement  in 
Dyer,  whatever  it  may  say  about  the  existence  in  the  air,  so  to  speak,  of 
treason  committed  abroad,  is  quite  emphatic  as  against  Hale  and  Coke, 
that  treason  committed  abroad  could  not  be,  and  never  had  been,  tried  here 
by  common  law.  Surely  the  passage  is  decisive  on  that. 

Now,  may  I  turn  to  the  passage  in  The  King  v.  Platt,  and  show  how 
it  supports  my  argument,  although  at  first  it  appearsi  to  admit  of  quite  a 
different  construction?  "It  was  the  ancient  opinion  that  the  species  of 
''treason  which  consists  by  25  Edward  III.,  chapter  2,  in  adhering  to  the 
"  King's  enemies,  might  be  tried  before  the  statute  35  Henry  VIII.,  chapter 


Motion  to   Quash  Indictment. 

"  2,  within  the  kingdom  by  the  rules  of  the  common  law,  although  the  aid 
"and  comfort  was  afforded  without  the  realm/'  It  does  not  say  without 
the  King's  dominions;  the  Act  of  Henry  VIII.  does.  The  very  title  of  the 
statute  says  that.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  see  my  point,  my  lord.  I 
am  trying  to  contend  that  the  remarks  in  The  King  v.  Platt  are  not  in  the 
least  inconsistent  with  our  position.  What  they  say  is  this,  that  treason 
without  the  realm,  not  without  the  King's  dominions,  may  have  been  tried 
before  the  statute  of  35  Henry  VIII.,  but  they  do  not  say  that  treason 
without  the  King's  dominions  might  have  been  tried  here.  My  whole  point 
is  the  common  law  extends  all  over  the  King's  dominions  except  where  they 
were  under  their  own  local  law,  and  therefore  the  cases  that  the  Court 
may  have  had  in  mind  are  cases  where  the  person  within  England  adhered 
to  the  King's  enemies,  and  gave  them  aid  and  comfort  in  some  other 
portions  of  His  Majesty's  dominions. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — If  it  is  right  that  the  statute  was  declaratory 
of  the  common  law,  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  usesi  the  word  realm,  and 
your  contention  must  be,  before  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII.,  treason  com- 
mitted outside  the  realm,  not  the  King's  dominions. 

Mr.  MORGAN — I  am  coming  to  that.  The  kind  of  case  of  adhering 
that  he  might  have  had  in  mind  is  where  the  person  is  within  the  realm, 
ex  hypothesi  it  might  be  that  he  sends  letters  or  intelligence  or  aid  to 
eome  other  portion  of  His  Majesty's  dominions.  The  act  may  then  be  an 
act  to  be  partly  committed  in  this  country  and  partly  without  this  country. 
Nearly  all  the  cases  of  adhering  are  cases  of  that  character.  Therefore  I 
submit  that  that  case  bears  out  my  contention. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — That  is  the  answer  Mr.  Sullivan  gave  yester- 
day; it  is  not  turning  on  the  difference  between  the  King's  dominions  and 
the  realm. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  quite  a  different  point,  and  it  seemed 
a  good  distinction ;  that  was  what  Mr.  Sullivan  pointed  out  yesterday ;  you 
may  have  adhering  to  the  King's  enemy  by  giving  aid  and  comfort  without 
the  realm,  and,  nevertheless,  the  adhering  to  the  King's  enemy  might  be  an 
act  committed  within  the  realm ;  that  may  be  quite  correct. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — I  am  afraid  I  have  not  followed  the  other  point 
you  are  trying  to  make — the  distinction  between  the  King's  dominions 
and  the  realm  in  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII.  I  tell  you  candidly  I  have  not 
followed  it,  and  I  do  not  know  now  what  it  is. 

Mr.  MORGAN — The  distinction  is  not  of  so  much  importance  as  the 
point  made  by  my  learned  friend  yesterday. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  we  accepted  yesterday  as  being  a  per- 
fectly sound  distinction. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Does  not  that  contention  dispose,  or  I  will  not  say 
dispose  of  it,  but  harmonise  The  King  v.  Platt  with  the  case  of  Dyer. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Speaking  for  myself,  I  think  if  all  you 
had  to  meet  was  that  sentence  in  the  1  Leach,  The  King  v.  Platt,  I  do  not 
think  it  is  against  you.  I  thought  that  Mr.  Sullivan  had  established 
that  on  that  sentence. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Then  I  need  not  labour  that  point. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — Assume  that  to  be  so,  you  must  assume  as 
regards  giving  aid  and  comfort  it  existed  before  the  statute  outside  the 
realm. 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 


Mr.  MORGAN — I  think  that  the  main  point  there  is,  this  means  treason 
by  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  without  the  realm  and  without  the 
dominions ;  the  point  is  important  because  the  statute  of  25  Edward  III. , 
as  things  were  then,  could  not  before  the  35  Henry  VIII.  have  supported 
an  indictment  for  treason  outside  the  dominions;  it  could  have  supported 
an  indictment  for  treason  within  the  realm,  and  it  could  have  supported 
an  indictment  for  treason  within  the  dominions,  but  it  could  not  have 
supported  an  indictment  for  compassing  outside  the  dominions  till  the  35 
Henry  VIII. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  assumes  the  point. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Does  it,  my  lord? 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  question  is,  what  is  the  meaning  to  be 
attributed  to  the  words  in  the  statute? 

Mr.  MORGAN — May  I  put  it  this  way,  is  the  point  that  we  have  to 
meet  this,  that  by  common  law,  before  35  Henry  VIII.  treason  was  an 
offence  of  such  a  character  that,  even  though  committed  abroad  without 
the  dominions,  quite  independent  of  the  statute  25  Edward  III.,  it  was 
an  offence  at  common  law?  I  will  address  myself  to  that  point. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — As  I  understand  the  passage,  particularly 
with  reference  to  that  passage  in  Hale  and  some  others,  it  seems  to  have 
been  regarded  as  a  case  of  such  exceptional  gravity,  and  a  crime  of 
such  exceptional  gravity  and  magnitude,  as  to  form  an  exception  to  the 
general  rule  of  the  English  criminal  law  that  all  crime  is  local;  that  is 
the  point. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Quite. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — I  understood  Mr.  Sullivan  yesterday  to  be 
giving  a  reason  why  it  was  not,  from  the  fact  that  there  could  be  no 
local  venue  of  it.  The  statute  of  Henry  VIII.  and  the  case  in  Dyer  both 
assume  that  the  offence  can  exist  although  there  is  no  venue  for  it.  That 
would  answer  his  argument  as  to  the  reason  why  these  were  not  triable, 
because  there  was  no  venue;  they  both  say  where  certain  treasons  exist 
as  to  which  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  there  is  power  to  try — they 
recognise  the  existence  of  that  in  each  case. 

Mr.  MORGAN — They  do  not  isay  they  exist  at  common  law;  I  contend 
that  all  the  authorities  laid  down  emphatically  that  no  offence  at  common 
law  in  the  absence  of  istatute  can  be  committed  abroad.  I  merely  draw 
attention  to  a  book  like  Archbold  where  he  says,  in  speaking  of  a  venue, 
at  page  33,  "  The  natural  jurisdiction  of  the  Courts  of  common  law  is 
"territorial,  and  no  person  can  be  tried  for  an  offence  committed  on 
"  land  abroad  except  under  the  authority  of  the  statute."  Stephen 
says  the  same  thing :  ' '  As  a  general  rule,  offences  committed  by  British 
"  subjects  out  of  England  are  not  punishable  by  the  criminal  law  of 
"  England."  The  only  exceptions  to  that  were  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
constable  and  marshal,  and  the  statutory  exceptions.  "  All  cases  in 
"  which  crimes  committed  abroad  can  now  be  tried  in  England  are  cases 
"  in  which  statutory  provisions  have  been  made  to  that  effect."  If 
you  look  at  M'Leod  v.  The  Attorney-General  of  New  South  Wales,  it  is 
there  laid  down  most  emphatically  that  all  crimes  are  local,  and  not  a 
single  exception  is  made  to  that  statement. 
100 


Motion  to  Quash  Indictment. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  was  a  question  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  dominion  or  of  the  State. 

Mr.  MORGAN — The  New  South  Wales  Legislature  had  passed  an 
Act  making  it  bigamy  for  a  New  South  Wales  citizen  to  marry  elsewhere, 
being  already  married  in  that  State. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — There  seems  no  doubt,  you  certainly  need 
not  labour  the  proposition  before  us,  which  we  think  is  elementary  and 
is  quite  clear,  that  the  general  law  is  that  all  crime  is  local.  There  is 
no  doubt  about  that.  There  are  certain  exceptions  created  by  statute, 
and  the  question  is  in  this  particular  case  whether  treason  was  not  an 
exception;  but  I  would  also  remind  you  that  whatever  the  view  may 
be  as  to  that,  it  still  will  not  alter  the  interpretation  of  the  words  which 
we  have  to  give  to  the  statute  of  1351,  which  is  the  point  that  we  must 
always  come  to,  although  here  we  may  get  some  light  by  investigating 
the  common  law  before  the  statute  came  into  existence. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Quite;  I  am  addressing  myself  for  the  moment  to  that 
question  of  common  law  jurisdiction.  If  one  has  to  confine  oneself  to 
the  words  of  the  statute,  I  submit  you  cannot  get  away  from  that.  I 
think  it  is  not  without  significance  that  Coke,  in  quoting  the  statute, 
it  is  true,  sets  out  the  whole  statute  in  detail  in  the  exact  words,  but 
when  he  comes  to  comment  on  each  particular  head  of  treason,  though 
he  still  quotes  the  Norman  French,  he  deliberately  leaves  out  the  words 
"  within  his  realm  "  in  their  first  position.  I  think,  to  begin  with,  that 
is  a  quite  indefensible  thing  to  do  in  commenting  upon  a  statute. 
There  is  a  case  of  The  King  v.  Wheldon,  in  which  this  point  was  raised. 
At  page  11  he  leaves  out  altogether  the  first  words,  "  within  the  realm. " 
My  learned  friend  remarks  if  he  leaves  them  out,  they  are  out,  which 
is  a  very  easy  way  of  disposing  of  the  passage.  That  is  really  all  I 
have  to  say.  I  presume,  after  what  your  lordship  said  yesterday  about 
The  King  v.  Vaughcm,  that  we  need  not  deal  with  the  question  of 
Admiralty  jurisdiction  for  the  reasons  which  your  lordships  gave. 

Then  I  only  conclude  by  drawing  your  lordships'  attention  to  a 
remark  made  by  Mr.  Justice  Finucane  in  The  King  v.  Wheldon.  It  is 
quoted  in  The  King  v.  Lynch,  and  it  is  in  the  26  State  Trials,  at  page 
293.  In  commenting  on  these  words,  "  Be  adherent  to  the  King's 
"  enemies  in  hisi  realm,"  he  makes  this  remark,  "  The  locality  is  annexed 
"to  the  person  adhering,  not  to  the  enemy  to  whom  he  adhered." 
Accordingly,  that  is  the  correct  interpretation,  and,  at  any  rate,  the 
words  must  be  understood  to  come  to  this,  the  defendant  must  have  been 
within  the  realm,  or  the  King's  enemies  must  have  been;  if  it  never  was 
within  the  realm  it  seems  to  me  to  be  quite  impossible  to  bring  the  facts 
alleged  in  the  indictment  within  the  statute.  That  is  our  case.  I  thank 
you,  my  lord,  for  listening  to  me  so  patiently  and  giving  me  such 
indulgence. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Before  you  sit  down,  if  you  attribute 
importance  to  The  King  v.  Wheldon  you  must  make  your  point  a  little 
clearer  to  me.  I  have  not  followed  your  last  point. 

Mr.  MORGAN — I  use  it  simply  by  way  of  illustration;  it  did  not 
directly  decide  the  point.  I  do  not  quote  that  case  as  an  authority; 

101 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

in  fact,  the  other  learned  judge  sitting,  as  I  frankly  admit,  judging  by  his 
remarks,  was  rather  against  me;  I  merely  quoted  Mr.  Justice  Finucane's 
remarks,  which  are  in  the  nature  of  obiter  dictum,  as  illustrating  the  point 
at  issue  that  the  words  "  within  the  realm  "  must  be  annexed  to  some- 
body; they  cannot  be  absolutely  meaningless;  they  occur  in  the  first  part  of 
the  clause,  and  presumably  govern  the  rest  of  the  clause  according  to  the 
ordinary  rules  of  construction. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Nobody  suggests  they  are  meaningless. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Then  I  shall  leave  it  for  the  counsel  for  the  Crown  to 
suggest  what  they  do  mean. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORY — This  judgment  may  be  important  in  Wheldon, 
the  judgment  of  Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Yes,  although  it  is  true  on  that  point,  it  may  tell 
against  me. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORY — "  We  are  also  of  opinion  that  the  essence  of  the 
"  offence  is  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  and  it  is  immaterial  where 
they  are.  It  is  an  offence  not  constituted  by  statute,  but  an  offence  at 
common,  law,  and  the  statute  only  says  that  no  man  shall  be  indicted 
but  for  treason,  as  there  specified  it  is  not  created  by  the  Act.  And 
indeed,  if  it  were  necessary,  it  does  substantially  appear,  because  two 
overt  acts  state  that  an  open  and  public  war  is  carried  on  by  the  French, 
and  that  the  prisoner  was  adhering  to  the  persons1  exercising  the  Govern- 
ment of  France.  So  that  if  it  were  necessary  it  is  substantially  charged 
that  he  was  adhering  to  the  enemies  without  the  realm." 

Mr.  MORGAN — Quite;  I  am  quite  prepared  to  meet  that. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — That  part  must  be  against  you. 

Mr.  MORGAN — No,  I  contend  it  is  not,  but  it  is  rather  in  my 
favour. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  the  way  to  deal  with  the  point, 
but  you  must  now  prove  that  it  is  so. 

Mr.  MORGAN — Yes,  I  will  try  to  do  BO. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORY — That  was  not  written  in  the  library. 

Mr.  MORGAN — No;  but  I  contend  that  that  passage  is  in  my  favour, 
while  at  the  same  time  I  freely  admit  it  may  be  open  to  another  con- 
struction. May  I  draw  attention  to  the  language  used  by  the  learned 
judge:  "  We  are  of  opinion  that  the  essence  of  the  offence  is  adhering 
"  to  the  King's  enemies,  and  it  is  immaterial  where  they  are,"  that  is 
the  enemies;  that  is  quite  consistent  with  our  view  in  this  case,  that 
the  person  was  within  the  realm;  he  was  charged  with  consulting  in 
Ireland  the  State  of  France  in  case  they  should  invade;  he  was  within 
the  realm  and  the  enemies  were  without.  That  is  the  whole  point. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  last  words  are  important:  "  So  that 
"  if  it  were  necessary  it  is  substantially  charged  that  he  was  adhering 
"  to  the  enemies  without  the  realm." 

Mr.  MORGAN — To  the  enemies  without  the  realm,  but  he  himself  was 
within  the  realm.  My  point  is  that  is  the  proper  construction  of  the 
statute,  that  the  defendants  must  be  within  the  realm  at  the  time;  that 
is  obvious  if  the  overt  acts  are  within  the  realm. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Yes. 

Mr.  MORGAN — And  the  defence  was  that  the  enemy  was  without  the 
102 


Motion  to  Quash  Indictment. 

realm.  I  think  if  that  case  is  carefully  studied  it  will  appear  to 
support  our  position  ais  regards  the  latter  portion  of  that  passage  to 
which  my  attention  was  drawn  just  now.  Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain  goes 
on  to  say  it  is  an  offence  not  constituted  by  statute,  but  an  offence  at 
common  law.  As  regards  that  point  he  does  not  say  that  it  was  an 
offence  at  common  law  to  adhere  to  the  King's  enemies  if  the  defendant 
as  well  as  the  enemies  were  without  the  realm,  and  that  is  the  whole  of 
our  position.  It  was  no  doubt  always  an  offence  at  common  law  to 
adhere  to  the  King's  enemies  within  the  realm.  The  statute  is  abso- 
lutely declaratory  on  that  point.  The  word  "  adhering"  occurs  in  some 
of  the  old  authorities  before  1351;  it  was  always  an  offence  at  common 
law  to  adhere  to  the  King's  enemies  within  the  realm,  probably  within 
the  dominions,  certainly  within  those  dominions  which  were  Ireland — 
they  had  the  common  law  imported  into  them.  That  is  quite  a  different 
proposition  to  saying  that  the  common  law  took  notice  of  offences  com- 
mitted outside  the  King's  dominions  altogether,  or  even  that  they  were 
offences  at  common  law  in  the  absence  of  statutory  authority.  I  respect- 
fully submit  that  the  considerations  advanced  yesterday  by  my  learned 
friend,  and  those  which,  to  the  best  of  my  poor  ability,  I  have  tried  to 
advance  this  morning,  are  absolutely  conclusive  against  this  indictment. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Do  you  remember  one  of  the  cases  in  which 
a  person  was  indicted  and  convicted  of  treason  without  the  realm,  that  is, 
in  Ireland?  I  do  not  remember  where  it  is,  but  I  have  seen  it. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — O'Rouke's  case  and  Perrot's  case. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  isi  the  case. 

Mr.  MORGAN — I  have  looked  up  the  case,  but  it  is  very  badly  reported 
in  the  State  Trials,  and  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  authority  on 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemies.  The  person,  I  believe,  was  charged  for 
compassing  and  not  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  within  the  realm.  It 
has  been  held  since  Poyning's  Act,  since  Henry  VIII.,  that  Ireland  was 
part  of  the  realm. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  depends  on  a  different  statute;  it  was 
held  that  was  within  the  realm  since  Poyning's  law. 

Mr.  MORGAN — If  Perrot's  case  occurred,  as  I  think  it  did,  since 
Poyning's  law,  Ireland  was  part  of  the  realm;  if  Perrot  was  charged  with 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemy  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  our  argument. 

The  ATTORNEY- GEJNERAL — May  it  please  your  lordship.  It  must,  I 
think,  be  long  since  the  great  sages  of  the  common  law  have  been  treated 
in  such  large  numbers  with  so  much  disrespect  in  any  Court  of  justice  in 
this  country,  and  certainly  the  assault  which  my  two  learned  friends  have 
directed  at  these  great  masters  of  the  common  law  was  by  no  means,  as 
it  seems  to  me,  the  fruit  of  caprice ;  it  was  necessary  to  the  bold  contention 
which  they  proposed  to  lay  before  your  lordship ;  it  was  necessary  that 
they  should  discover  one  method  or  other  of  criticising  all  these  great 
authorities,  household  names  in  the  history  of  our  jurisprudence,  because, 
by  a  singular  accident,  all  of  them  were  unanimously  opposed  for  a  long 
period  of  years  to  the  contentions  which  my  learned  friends  have  been 
driven  to  put  before  your  lordship  in  this  matter.  I  do  not  think  that 
my  learned  friends  will  dispute  that  they  owed  the  inception  of  this 
contention  and  many  of  the  arguments  by  which  they  have  sought  to 

103 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


support  it,  to  the  advocate  who  made  the  same  submissions  in  the  case  to 
which  your  lordships'  attention  has  already  been  directed,  The  King  v. 
Lynch.  I  propose,  if  I  may,  to  devote  the  few  observations  with  which  I 
shall  think  it  necessary  to  trouble  your  lordships,  first  to  the  law  as  I 
conceive  it  to  have  been  at  common  law  and  before  the  statute  of 
Edward  III.,  and  afterwards  to  the  state  of  the  law  as  that  statute  left  the 
law,  and  then  to  consider  shortly  the  effect  of  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII. 
upon  the  statute  of  Edward  III. ;  and  to  inform  your  lordships  of  some 
of  the  decisions  which,  contrary  to  the  statement  inadvertently  made  by  my 
learned  friend,  Mr.  Sullivan,  have  held  that  treason  without  the  realm  can 
be  tried  in  this  country.  I  may  have  imperfectly  apprehended  what  my 
learned  friend  said,  but  I  understood  my  learned  friend  to  say  yesterday 
that  he  knew  of  no  case  in  which  a  person  charged  with  treason  without  the 
realm  had  been  made  justiciable  in  this  country.  I  think  I  shall  be  in  a 
position  to  direct  my  learned  friend's  attention,  and  also  your  lordships' 
attention,  to  many  such  cases. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  did  not  understand  Mr.  Sullivan  to  contend 
that;  I  thought  he  said  there  were  no  cases  which  had  in  terms  decided 
that  these  words  in  the  statute  1351  were  to  be  interpreted  as  they  were 
being  interpreted  by  the  Crown  in  this  indictment,  that  is,  that  adherence 
to  the  King's  enemies  without  the  realm  was  an  offence. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — If  that  was  all  that  my  learned  friend  said 
I  should  not  quarrel  with  it.  It  is  quite  true  that  if  you  take  the  long 
list  of  cases  in  which  this  matter  has  been  considered  there  has  been  no 
advocate,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  the  whole  history  of  those  cases  who  has 
ever  been  bold  enough  to*  put  forward  this  contention  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  statute,  though  decisions  of  the  Courts  have,  as  I  will  show  your 
lordships,  proceeded  many  times  upon  the  opposite  view ;  in  no  case  since 
the  statute  has  that  contention  ever  been  put  forward  by  any  advocate. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — Till  the  case  of  The  King  v.  Lynch. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — Till  the  case  of  The  King  v.  Lynch.  If  I 
may  make  an  observation  as  to  the  common  law  it  is  necessary,  as  my 
learned  friend  pointed  out,  that  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  in  considering 
these  matters  that  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  has  been  repeatedly  and 
authoritatively  stated  to  be  declaratory  of  the  common  law  of  this  country. 
Now,  it  is  put  in  argument  that  the  theory  of  the  criminal  law  MI  this 
country  is,  and  has  always  been,  that  crime  is  local  in  its  character,  and  that 
conclusion  is  well  founded ;  but  it  has  always,  as  I  hope  to  satisfy  your 
lordships,  been  either  stated  or  assumed  when  these  matters  have  been 
carefully  considered  that  the  offence  of  treason  was  an  exception  to  this 
general  rule,  and  if  one  examines  for  a  moment  the  conception  upon  which 
the  law  of  treason  depends,  one  sees  at  once  the  grounds  upon  which 
this  inception  has  been  admitted.  The  view  taken  by  the  law  has  always 
been  that  allegiance,  that  impalpable  and  almost  indefinable  idea  which 
connects  the  subjects  with  the  Sovereign,  is  carried  by  the  subject 
wherever  that  subject  goes  and  wherever  the  subject  sojourns.  It  is 
a  personal  tie  binding  the  subject  to  the  Sovereign  and  providing  certain 
legal  consequences  wherever  the  subject  goes,  and  a  moment's  reflection 
will,  I  think,  make  it  clear  when  one  is  dealing  with  matters  of  the 
gravity  that  are  raised  by  the  doctrine  of  high  treason  that  it  must  have 
104 


Motion  to   Quash  Indictment. 

been  impossible  that  the  common  law  of  this  country  could  have  excluded 
the  conception  that  treason  or  acts  of  treason,  whether  compassing  or 
adherence,  which  were  committed  without  the  realm — I  said,  a  moment's 
observation  must  make  that  plain  when  one  is  dealing  with  the  affairs  of  a 
country,  particularly  of  an  insular  Power,  such  as  this  country  is.  It  is,  I 
should  have  thought  evident  that,  except  in  the  case  of  actual  invasion, 
traitorous  acts,  acts  of  treason,  certainly  acts  of  adherence  to  the  King's 
enemies,  were  far  more  likely  in  the  ordinary  course  to  be  committed 
without  the  realm  than  within  the  realm;  in  other  words,  the  King's 
enemies  in  the  more  common  and  obvious  cases  of  adherence,  except  in 
the  cases  of  invasion,  very  rare  as  they  are  in  history,  are  likely  to  be 
found  not  within  the  realm,  but  without  the  realm.  It  would  indeed  have 
been  strange  if  the  common  law  of  this  country  had  permitted  a  subject  of 
this  country,  bound  to  the  Sovereign  by  the  personal  tie  of  allegiance,  to  go 
to  the  country  which  for  so  many  centuries  was  an  enemy  of  this  country, 
France,  at  the  door  of  this  realm  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  and  then 
concede  that  although  the  personal  tie  of  allegiance  had  subsisted  during  the 
periods  during  which  these  acts  of  adherence  were  committed,  yet  in  the 
view  of  the  criminal  law  of  this  country  no  violation  had  taken  place 
of  the  law  of  treason  as  that  law  was  understood  at  the  time.  It  would, 
I  submit,  have  been  inconceivable  had  such  a  doctrine  ever  been  held. 
I  will  show  your  lordships  in  a  moment  that  not  only  has  no  high 
authority  ever  said  that  this  offence  was  not  recognised  as  an  offence  at 
common  law,  but  that  the  whole  trend  of  authority  is  in  the  opposite 
direction. 

Now,  I  come  to  make  an  observation  upon  the  statute  of  Edward  III., 
a  statute  as  we  have  seen  declaratory  of  the  common  law.  My  learned 
friends  dealt  with  the  statute  of  Edward  III.,  if  they  will  allow  me  to  say  so, 
in  a.  manner  which  was,  I  think,  a  little  perfunctory,  especially  having  regard 
to  the  elaboration  of  some  other  branches  of  their  arguments.  They 
assumed  rather  than  argued  that  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  had  the  meaning 
which  they  attempted  to  put  upon  it.  I  submit,  on  the  other  hand,  to 
your  lordships  that  the  views  which  have  been  unanimously  held  by  the 
great  writers  upon  our  criminal  law  as*  to  the  effect  of  the  statute  of 
Edward  III.  are  not  only  well  founded,  but  they  are  the  only  views  which 
can  reasonably,  if  one  considers  the  wording  of  the  statute,  be  admitted 
or  accepted. 

Will  your  lordships  be  so  good  as  to  look  at  the  words  which  your 
lordships  recollect  are  at  page  1031  of  Archbold?  I  ought  perhaps  to 
make  this  preliminary  observation,  that  in  dealing  with  a  statute  so  ancient 
as  this,  couched  in  the  language  which  is  before  your  lordships,  one  does 
not  always  adopt  all  the  same  standards  of  grammatical  construction 
which  one  applies  to  statutes  of  King  George  V.  These  are  the  words, 
"  If  a  man  do  levy  war  against  our  Lord  the  King  in  his  realm  or  be 
"adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his  realm,  giving  to  them  aid  and 
comfort  in  the  realm  or  elsewhere,  and  therefore  be  probably  attainted 
"  of  open  deed  by  the  people  of  their  condition."  Those  are  the 
material  words.  The  submission  which  I  make  is  that  the  views  of  those 
who  have  always  held  that  these  words  contemplated  and  covered  the 
offence  of  adherence  without  the  realm  are  well  founded,  and,  as  I  have 

105 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


said,  are  not  only  reasonable,  but  are  almost  the  necessary  construction  of 
the  words.     How,  then,  ought  the  words  to  be  read?     They  ought,  in  the 
submission  of   the    Crown,    to    be   read    exactly    as    if    before    the   word 
"'  giving"  and  after  the  word  "realm,"  in  the  phrase  "  giving  to  them 
'  aid  and  comfort  in  the  realm,"  there  were  brackets,  that  those  words, 
n  other  words,  were  in  brackets.       Let  it  be  so  read,  "  If  a  man  do  levy 
1  war  against  our  Lord  the  King  in  his  realm  or  be  adherent  to  the  King's 
'  enemies  in  his  realm  (giving  to  them  aid  and  comfort  in  the  realm)  or 
'  elsewhere."      With  submission,  that  is  not  only  a  probable  construction, 
but  it  is  by  far  the  most  reasonable  construction  that  can  be  put  upon 
those  words.       You  have  here  the  use  of  the  phrase,  "  be  adherent  to  the 
"  King's  enemies  in  his  realm,"  and  then  the  need  is  felt  by  the  draughts- 
man, such  is  the  suggestion  I  make,  to  give  some  explanation  or  some 
enlargement  of  the  phrase  which  is  being  used,  the  phrase  "be  adherent 
"  to  the  King's  enemies,"  and  he  interpolates  the  phrase  "  giving  to  them 
"  aid  and  comfort  in  the  realm,"  making  the  words  "  or  elsewhere"  an 
addition  to  the  phrase  "  be  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his  realm." 
I  have  ventured  to  submit  to  your  lordships  that  was  not  only  a  reasonable 
construction,  it  is  really,  if  one  construes  the  statute  as  a  whole  in  the 
light  of  the  general  consideration  which  I  venture  to  lay  before  your  lord- 
ships on  the  common  law  before  the  statute,  a  necessary  construction. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Mr.  Attorney,  would  you  assent  to  this  view 
of  the  construction,  taking  the  words  "or  elsewhere,"  may  they  not 
govern  both  the  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  within  the  realm  or 
elsewhere,  and  also  giving  to  them  aid  and  comfort  in  the  realm  or 
elsewhere  1 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — There  are  two  possible  views;  that  is  one 
of  them,  and  the  one  I  have  indicated  to  your  lordships  is  the  other.  The 
conclusion  which  follows  from  either  of  those  views  has  been  variously 
supported,  one  or  the  other,  by  various  writers. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  seems  a  little  difficult  to  understand  why 
one  should  limit  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's  enemies  in  the 
realm.  I  do  not  know  why  it  should  not  be  equally  an  offence  without  the 
realm  when  in  an  island  in  all  probability  the  King's  enemies  will  mostly 
be  found  without  the  realm. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — That  is  what  I  was  going  to  ask.  Assuming 
that,  "elsewhere"  might  govern  both. 

The  ATTORNEY-GEJNERAL — Your  lordship  suggested  that  yesterday. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — I  do  not  see  why  the  statute  should  limit  the 
giving  of  aid  and  comfort  in  the  realm  when  it  may  extend,  according  to 
your  submission,  to  adhesion  outside  the  realm. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICES — That  seems  to  me  to  get  added  force  if  one 
bears  in  mind  and  recollect  that  the  words  "  giving  to  them  aid  and 
"comfort"  are  really  a  parenthesis,  and  describing  what  is  meant  by 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemies.  If  you.  read  it  in  that  way  it  would 
seem  to  me  that  the  words  must  necessarily  govern  both  adherence  and  the 
descriptive  words;  you  are  dealing  with  the  same  offence. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Quite.  It  may  be  from  that  point  of  view 
it  covers  the  whole  phrase,  including  the  levying  of  war. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  also  possible. 
106 


Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  do  not  mind  which  of  those  views  is  taken. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGB — The  quotation  from  Mr.  Justice  Willes  merely 
leaves  that  out,  and  makes  it  govern  the  adherence. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — Yes.  As  to  the  position  in  law  which 
followed  upon  the  passing  of  the  statute  of  Edward  III.,  it  seems  to  me  the 
passage  quoted  from  Hawkins — I  apologise  to  my  learned  friend  for 
mentioning  such  as  authority — is  very  apposite.  He  says  on  page  306, 
under  "  Indictment,"  "  It  seems  to  have  been  a  great  doubt  before  the 
"  making  of  the  statute  of  35  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  2,  in  what  manner  and 
"  in  what  place  high  treason  done  out  of  the  realm  was  to  be  tried.  For 
"  some  seem  to  have  holden  that  it  was  triable  only  upon  an  appeal  before 
"  the  constable  and  marshal;  others  that  it  might  be  tried  upon  an  indiot- 
' (  ment,  laying  the  offence  in  any  county  where  the  King  pleased ;  .  and 
1 '  others  that  it  was  triable  by  way  of  indictment  in  that  county  only 
"wherein  the  offender  had  lands;  but  surely  it  cannot  reasonably  be 
"  doubted  but  that  it  was  triable  some  way  or  other.77  I  think  my 
learned  friend  called  this  the  cry  of  despair,  "  for  it  cannot  be  imagined 
"  that  an  offence  of  such  dangerous  consequence,  and  expressly  within  the 
"purview  of  25  Edward  III.,  should  be  wholly  dispunishable,  as  it  must 
"  have  been  if  it  were  DO  way  triable." 

As  I  understand  the  significance  of  this  passage,  it  is  very  great, 
because  between  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  and  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII. 
the  learned  author,  who  had  been  giving  great  attention  to  these  matters, 
says  that  there  were  great  doubts.  But  what  did  the  doubts  relate  to? 
Did  the  doubts  relate  to  the  question  whether  high  treason  done  out 
of  the  realm  was  an  offence?  He  does  not  enumerate  that  as  among  the 
many  grounds  of  doubts  he  thinks  it  worth  while  to  call  attention  to.  The 
doubts  were  as  to  in  what  manner  and  detail  high  treason  done  out  of  the 
realm  was  to  be  tried.  He  gives  various  views  that  had  been  held  by 
various  authorities.  "  For  some  seem  to  have  holden  that  it  was  triable 
' '  only  upon  an  appeal  before  the  constable  and  marshal ;  others  that  it 
"  might  be  tried  upon  an  indictment,  laying  the  offence  in  any  county 
"  where  the  King  pleased  " — that  is,  leaving  the  King  to  choose  the  venue 
where  the  offender  had  lands.  He  states  in  weighty  language  his 
conclusion,  "That  it  was  triable  some  way  or  other;  for  it  cannot  be 
"imagined  that  an  offence  of  such  dangerous  consequence,  and  expressly 
"  within  the  purview  of  25  Edward  III.,  should  be  wholly  dispunishable." 
So  that  the  high  authority  of  Hawkins  says  again,  in  the  plainest  possible 
way,  in  this  statement,  which  is  not  in  the  least  an  answer,  but  a  positive 
conclusion,  that  high  treason  done  out  of  the  realm  is  expressly  within 
the  purview  of  25  Edward  III. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Is  there  any  authority  of  which  you  have 
cognisance  which  says  that  if  high  treason  is  committed  without  the 
realm  it  is  not  an  offence  at  common  law  ? 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — No,  and  I  may  boldly  say  there  is  none. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  know  of  none.  Even  in  the  case  in  2 
Dyer,  to  which  reference  is  made,  it  was  assumed  that  the  doing  of  the 
act  is  an  offence.  All  that  it  does  is  to  say  it  is  not  triable  by  the 
course  of  the  common  law. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes.  The  emphasis  is  on  the  word 
"  triable  "  in  that  connection.  I  will  come  to  the  case  in  Dyer  later. 

107 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — Before  you  leave  that,  it  may  be  the  statute 
does  not  deal  with  specific  treason  by  adherence,  there  may  be  treason 
outside  the  particular  one  which  was  an  offence,  although  there  was  no 
means  of  trying  it ;  he  is  not  dealing  with  the  particular  case  of  adherence 
there. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — That  is  perfectly  true.  It  might  have  been 
expected,  I  submit,  that  if  in  making  this  grave  statement  that  the 
offence  was  expressly  within  the  purview  of  25  Edward  III.,  he  wanted  to 
put  forward  the  view  that  there  was1  a  distinction  to  be  drawn  between 
certain  treasons1  under  the  Act,  he  would  have  done  so. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — I  think  that  is  quite  a  fair  comment. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — And  such'  being  the  case,  namely,  that  doubts 
had  arisen  in  the  language  of  Hawkins,  as  to  what  the  proper  method  of 
trying  these  admitted  offences  was,  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII.  wasi  passed; 
and  I  may  remind  your  lordships,  as  possibly  an  additional  reason  why 
that  statute  should  have  been  thought  necessary,  that  there  had  been  a 
great  increase  in  the  number  of  constructive  treasons*  in  the  reign  of 
King  Henry  VIII.,  all  kinds  of  dynastic  considerations  intervened,  and 
doubt  was  felt  as  to  the  proper  method  of  dealing  with  them.  That  is  at 
page  1032  of  Archbold.  The  note  is,  "  Venue  for  treasons  committed 
"  abroad." 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  title  is  not  in  Archbold,  but  it  is  "  An 
"  Act  concerning  the  trial  of  treasons  committed  out  of  the  King's 
"  Majesty's  dominions1." 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes,  it  is  purely  machinery.  "  Forasmuch 
"  as  some  doubts  and  questions  have  been  moved,  that  certain  kinds 
"  of  treasons,  misprisdons,  and  concealments  of  treason  done,  perpetrated, 
"  or  committed  out  of  the  King's  Majesty's  realm  of  England  cannot, 
"  by  the  common  laws  of  this  realm  be  inquired  of,  heard,  and  deter- 
"  mined  within  this  his  said  realm  of  England;  for  a  plain  remedy, 
"  order,  and  declaration  therein  to  be  had  and  made,  be  it  enacted  by 
"  authority  of  this  present  Parliament  that  all  manner  of  offences  being 
"  already  made,  declared,  or  hereafter  to  be  made  or  declared,  by  any 
"of  the  laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm,  to  be  treasons,  misprisionsi  of 
"  treasons,  or  concealments  of  treasons,  and  done,  perpetrated,  or  com- 
"  mitted,  or  hereafter  to  be  done,  perpetrated,  or  committed,  by  any 
"  person  or  persons  out  of  this  realm  of  England,  shall  be  from  henceforth 
"  inquired  of,  heard,  and  determined  before  the  King's  justices  of  his 
"  Bench  for  pleas  to  be  holden  before  himself,  by  good  and  lawful  men 
"  of  the  same  shire  where  the  said  Bench  shall  sit  and  be  kept,  or  else 
"before  such  commissioners  and  in  such  shire  of  the  realm  as  shall  be 
"  assigned  by  the  King's  Majesty's  commission,  and  by  good  and  lawful 
"  men  of  the  same  shire,  in  like  manner  and  form  to  all  intents  and 
"  purposes  as  if  any  such  treasons,  inisprisions  of  treasons,  or  concealments 
"  of  treasons  had  been  done,  perpetrated,  and  committed  within  the  same 
"shire  where  they  shall  be  so  inquired  of,  heard,  and  determined  as  is 
"  aforesaid."  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  perhaps,  that  the  form  of  the 
statute  supports  the  view  which,  as  I  have  said,  all  the  great  authorities 
over  so  long  a  period  of  time  have  taken,  as  to  its  content  and  scope, 
because  it  purposes'  to  be  a  declaration  for  the  purpose  of  relieving  doubts 
108 


Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

as  to  the  precis©  method  in  which  these  crimes  universally  conceded  to  be 
triable  somehow  ought  to  be  dealt  with. 

The  LOED  CHIEF  JUSTICE — So  far  a®  one  can  follow  from  the  reference 
to  the  cases  cited  yesterday  and  to-day  the  doubts  that  have  arisen  were 
all  as  to  the  mode  of  the  trial  and  the  venue. 
The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Quite. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — No  doubt,  so  far  as  I  can  follow,  is  any- 
where expressed  as  to  the  act  being  an  offence,  and  an  offence  punishable 
according  to  the  law  of  England;  the  only  question  was,  if  you  had  got 
the  person,  where  were  you  to  try  him? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  have  given  some  attention  to  this  matter, 
and  I  have  had  the  assistance  of  my  learned  friends,  who  are  both 
industrious  and  persevering  in  these  matters,  and  I  think  I  may  say  there 
is  no  past  case  that  any  of  us  know  in  the  books  in  which  any  doubt 
whatever  has  been  thrown  upon  the  view  that  it  was  an  offence ;  I  know  of 
none,  and  I  do  not  think  my  learned  friends  are  in  a  position  to  call 
attention  to  any. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  words  in  Dyer,  the  only  words  that 
are  relied  upon,  seem  to  point  just  the  other  way.  These  are  the  words 
relied  upon,  "  Because  no  offence  of  treason  committed  out  of  the  realm 
"  was  triable  here  by  the  course  of  the  common  law,  therefore  this  statute 
1 '  enlarges  the  power  and  authority  of  the  trials  of  the  realm  in  this 
"  point/'  It  seems  that  it  isi  an  offence  to  commit  treason  without  the 
realm,  but  it  says  the  difficulty  is,  according  to  the  course  of  common 
law,  where  is  the  offence  to  be  tried. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — That  is  the  same  view  that  Hawkins  takes. 
It  is  worth  noticing  about  the  case  in  Dyer,  the  charge  in  question,  as  I 
understand  the  very  short  report,  is  contained  in  a  memorandum  which  is 
not,  I  think,  the  conclusion  of  the  judges,  because  the  conclusion  is  given 
below.  The  conclusion,  I  think,  begins  about  seven  lines  from  the 
bottom  of  the  page,  "  And  for  the  cause  above,  the  judges,  Sir  John 
"  Baker  and  Hare,  Master  of  the  Rolls,  were  assembled,  and  they  thought 
"  as  above,  and  by  the  words1  above,  according  to  the  order  and  course 
"  of  the  common  law,  it  shall  be  intended  that  the  trial  shall  be  in  the 
"  county  where  the  indictment  is  " — I  rather  think  the  earlier  part  is  the 
case  put  before  them,  and  the  conclusion  arrived  at  is  set  out  in  the  last 
six  lines. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  is  not  unimportant  to  observe  how  it 
came  before  them.  There  was  the  statute  of  35  Henry  VIII.,  then  came 
the  statute  of  1  and  2  Philip  and  Mary,  and  Philip  and  Mary  having  said 
a  certain  thing,  "that  all  trials  hereafter  to  be  had,  awarded,  or  made 
"  for  any  .treason  shall  be  had  and  used  only  according  to  the  due  order 
"  and  course  of  the  common  laws  of  this  realm,  and  not  otherwise/'  had 
that  statute  of  Philip  and  Mary  in  any  way  repealed  or  modified  the  effect 
of  35  Henry  VIII. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — That  was  the  whole  point. 
The    LORD    CHIEF    JUSTICE — That    was    the   whole    point    they    were 
discussing? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORY — The  resolution  was  that  trial  should  be  in  the 

109 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 


county  where  the  indictment  was;  that  was  the  only  resolution  that  was 
come  to. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — That  is  quite  true.  I  do  not  propose  to 
say  anything  more  about  that  now.  It  might  be  useful  to  call  your 
lordships'  attention  to  the  various  oases — I  think  I  can  do  it  compendiously 
— some  of  them  of  considerable  antiquity,  some  more  recent,  in  which  the 
view  of  the  statute  which  I  am  endeavouring  to  press  upon  your  lordships 
has  been  accepted  and  acted  upon  in  one  way  or  other.  There  was  a 
case  of  William  de  Weston,  which  is  reported  in  1  Richard  II.,  Roll  of 
Parliament,  volume  iii.,  pages  10  to  12.  In  that  case  it  was  found  by 
Parliament,  as  recorded  on  the  roll,  that  William,  having  undertaken  to 
keep  safely  the  Castle  of  Outkrewyk,  in  Flanders,  without  any  duress  or 
lack  of  victuals,  wickedly  delivered  and  surrendered  it  to  the  King's 
enemies  by  his  own  default  alone,  against  all  right  and  reason,  and 
against  his  allegiance  and  undertaking.  There  is  the  resolution  of  Par- 
liament that  he  was  sentenced  to  be  drawn  and  hanged. 

Then  there  is  the  case  of  John  de  Gomenys,  who  was  sentenced  for 
delivering  up  the  Castle  of  Ardes.  Now,  it  was  held,  a  little  strange  to 
say,  that  as  he  was  a  gentleman,  and  had  served  Edward  III.,  he  was  not  a 
liege  man  of  Richard  II.,  he  was  only  to  be  beheaded.  Now  the  question 
arose,  in  reference  to  both  those  matters,  whether  the  charge  was  treason. 
Both  the  acts,  and  they  would  have  been  acts  of  adherence  in  surrendering 
the  castles  if  they  were  treason  at  all,  were  committed  in  Flanders.  Now, 
Hale  has  considered  his  case  in  his  Pleas  of  the  Crown  at  pagesi  167  and 
168,  and  in  the  second  paragraph  of  167  he  says,  "  If  an  Englishman 
' '  during  war  between  the  Kings  of  England  and  France  be  taken  by  the 
"French,  and  there  swear  fealty  to  the  King  of  France,  if  it  be  done 
"  voluntarily,  it  is  an  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies;  but  if  it  be  done 
"  for  fear  of  his  life,  and  that  he  returns,  as  soon  as  he  might,  to  the 
"  allegiance  of  the  Crown  of  England,  this  is  not  an  adherence  to  the 
"King's  enemies  within  this  Act."  Then  in  the  next  paragraph,  "If 
"a  captain  or  other  officer,  that  hath  the  custody  of  any  of  the  King's 
"  castles  or  garrisons,  shall  treacherously,  by  combination  with  the  King's 
"enemies  or  by  bribery  or  for  reward,  deliver  them  up,  this  is  adherence 
"to  the  King's  enemies.  This  was  the  case  of  William  Weston  for 
' '  delivering  up  the  Castle  of  Oughtrewicke  and  John  de  Gomenys  for 
"  delivering  up  the  Castle  of  Ardes,  in  France,  both  which  were  impeached 
"  by  the  Commons,  and  had  judgment  of  the  Lords  in  Parliament, 
"  Rot.  Par.  1  R.  2,  p.  40,  namely,  William  Weston  to  be  drawn 
"  and  hanged,  but  execution  was  respited."  Then  it  gives  Gomenys' 
judgment,  and  says,  "  The  execution  was  respited."  Then  the  learned 
author  adds  this  note,  which  is  very  much  in  point,  ' '  And  note,  though 
"  the  charge  was  treason,  and  possibly  the  proofs  might  probably  amount  to 
"  it,  and  Walsingham,  sub  anno,  1  R.  2,  tell  us  it  was  done  by  treason ; 
"  yet  the  reason  expressed  in  the  judgment  against  Weston  is  only  " — then 
he  puts  it  in  Norman  French,  on  the  ground  of  surrender. 

Then  it  goes  on.       "  The  truth  is  if  it  were  delivered  up  by  bribery 

"  or  treachery  it  might  be  treason,  but  if  delivered  up  upon  cowardice  or 

"  imprudence  without  any  treachery,  though  it  were  an  offence  against  the 

"  laws  of  war,  and  the  party  subject  to  a  sentence  of  death  by  martial  law, 

110 


Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

"as  it  once  happened  in  a  case  of  the  like  nature  in  the  late  times  of 
"  trouble,  yet  it  is  not  treason  by  the  common  law,  unless  it  was  done 
"  by  treachery."  The  learned  author  took  those  two  cases  on  the  whole 
as  conclusive  that  the  matter  was  dealt  with  under  the  head  of  treason, 
and  is  of  opinion  that  if  it  was  delivered  up  not  by  cowardice  but  from 
treachery  it  might  properly  be  dealt  with  as  treason. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HOBRIDGB — And  that  is,  at  the  earlier  portion  of  the 
passage,  specially  stated  to  be  adhering  to  the  King's-  enemies. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am  indebted  to  your  lordship ;  in  terms 
it  is  so  stated.  I  have  other  cases,  but  the  most  useful  to  refer  to  now 
is  Lord  Wentworth's  case,  a  case  reported  in  the  4  State  Trials  at 
page  314.  In  this  case  the  indictment  has  been  found,  and  is  available 
for  the  purpose  of  consideration.  The  indictment  charges  and  sets  forth 
that  Lord  Wentworth,  Edward  Grimston,  and  Ralph  Chamberlain  were 
indicted  jointly  with  others  for  that  occupying  and  exercising  their 
aforesaid  several  offices  at  Calais  in  parts  beyond  the  seas,  on  20th 
December  they  traitorously  were  adhering,  aiding,  and  comforting,  and 
procuring  to  Henry,  King  of  the  French,  the  public  enemy  of  the  said 
King  and  Queen  and  of  this  realm  of  England,  in  order  to  traitorously 
deprive  the  said  King  and  Queen  from  their  possession  of  the  said  town  of 
Calais  and  the  castle  of  the  same,  and  deliver  the  same  into  the  hands 
and  possession  of  the  said  Henry,  now  King  of  the  French.  As  regards 
Lord  Wentworth  the  indictment  was  removed  into  the  House  of  Lords, 
where  he  was  found  not  guilty.  Grimston  was  tried  before  Commissioners, 
which,  as  your  lordships  will  recollect,  is  another  alternative  method  of 
trial,  and  found  not  guilty.  Chamberlain  was  tried  before  the  same 
Commission,  found  guilty,  and  executed.  That  was  a  case  of  treason 
without  the  realm,  in  Calais. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — What  was  the  date  of  that? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — 1558. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — That  was  when  Calais  was  a  portion  of  the 
King's  dominions,  but  it  was  not  within  the  realm.  Calais  was  ceded  in 
the  time  of  Queen  Mary. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Calais  was  represented  in  Parliament  as  late  as 
James  I.  Parliament  purported  to  legislate  with  regard  to  a  place  outside 
of  the  realm,  up  to  the  time  of  James  I. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — There  was  a  conviction  only  in  one  case, 
the  case  of  Ralph  Chamberlain. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  could  be  explained,  could  it  not,  without 
praying  in  aid  the  doctrine  required  for  this  case.  The  conviction  on 
that  indictment  may  have  been  perfectly  right  because,  if  the  offence  was 
committed  at  Calais  in  the  circumstances,  it  was  not  necessarily  the 
special  treason  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  without  the  realm. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — It  was  not  necessarily,  but  the  facts,  so  far 
as  they  are  set  out,  I  should  have  thought  rendered  the  conclusion  a 
probable  one  that  it  was  that  part  of  the  statute  that  was  considered. 
They  were  "  Aiding  and  comforting  and  procuring,"  so  the  indictment 
says,  "to  Henry,  King  of  the  French  ...  in  order  to  traitorously 
*'  deprive  the  said  King  and  Queen  from  their  possession  of  the  said 

111 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


"  town  of  Calais."  I  observe-  from  the  full  indictment  that  it  does  treat 
Calais  in  that  case  as  part  of  the  King's  dominions ;  but  there  are  so  many 
other  authorities  in  which  it  does  not  arise  that  I  will  not  trouble  your 
lordships  further  with  that  case. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  is  not  worth  pursuing. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — No.  Your  lordship  asked  some  questions 
about  some  cases  which  dealt  with  the  case  of  Ireland.  My  learned 
friend,  Mr.  Sullivan,  informed  your  lordship  of  the  case  of  O'Rurke,  which 
was  tried  in  1591,  reported  in  4  State  Trials  at  page  708.  The  indict- 
ment charges  O'Rurke  "  as  a  false  traitor  against  the  Lady  Elizabeth,  Queen 
"  of  England,  France,  and  Ireland,  at  Dromhere,  in  the  realm  of  the  said 
''Lady,  the  Queen  of  Ireland,  in  parts  beyond  the  sea,  traitorously  con- 
Aspired  and  compassed  the  death  of  the  Queen,"  and  then  it  sets  out 
various  overt  acts  and  charges,  "  adherence  to  the  Queen's  enemies  in 
"  the  realm  of  Ireland  in  parts  beyond  the  seas."  Then  in  another  part 
it  charges  "  That  the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  Philip,  King  of  Spain,  had 
"prepared  a  great  army  hostilely  to  invade  this  realm  of  England,"  and 
ihat  "  O'Rurke  traitorously  received,  fed,  and  comforted,  and  aided 
"  very  many  of  the  aforesaid  Spaniards,  enemies  of  our  said  Lady  the 
"  Queen,  arriving  in  certain  ships  in  the  said  realm  of  Ireland."  In  the 
third  place  it  charged  "  That  O'Rurke,  in  the  realm  of  Ireland  in  parts 
"beyond  the  seas,  traitorously  aided  and  comforted  certain  rebels  and 
"  traitors  of  the  realm  of  Ireland."  The  other  counts  in  the  indictment  I 
do  not  think  are  very  material  to  the  matters  under  consideration  here. 
There  the  judgment  of  the  Court  was  that  he  had  been  guilty  of  treason. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — Did  not  the  indictment  lay  the  act  done  in 
Ireland  as  being  in  the  realm  of  the  Queen? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — It  was  charged  a®  being  outside  the  realm 
of  England ;  it  was  charged  a©  being  within  the  realm  of  Ireland. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — It  says  "  Our  Lady  the  Queen." 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — "Lady  the  Queen  of  Ireland";  but  it  was 
treated  as  being  outside  the  realm  of  England.  Then,  my  lords,  the 
next  is  Perrot's  case,  tried  in  1592,  reported  in  4  State  Trials  at  page  708. 
In  that  case  we  also  have  the  indictment.  The  indictment  charged 
"  That  Perrot,  late  Deputy  of  the  Lady  the  Queen,  in  her  realm  of  Ireland 
"  in  parts  beyond  seas,  as  a  false  traitor  against  the  Queen  at  Dublin,  in 
"the  said  realm  of  the  said  Lady  the  Queen  of  Ireland,  compassed  the 
"  Queen's  death,  and  to  bring  about  the  overthrow  of  the  Commonwealth 
"of  the  realms  of  England  and  Ireland,"  and  "That  the  Pope  and  the 
"  King  of  Spain  had  prepared  an  army  to  invade  the  realm  of  England, 
"  and  that  Perrot,  in  the  realm  of  Ireland,  wrote  traitorous  letters  inciting 
"the  King  of  Spain  to  perform  his  malicious  purpose."  That  was 
similarly  dealt  with.  Those  cases  are  open  to  the  comment  which  Mr. 
Justice  Horridge  has  made. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — What  is  your  reference  to  those  cases  in 
1591  and  1592;  is  it  Hargreaves? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  think  it  is  Hargreaves. 

Then,  my  lords,  the  next  case  I  ask  attention  to  is  that  of  Lords 
Middleton  and  Castlemaine,  John  Stafford,  and  Others,  tried  in  the  year 
1695.       In  that  case  we  have  the  indictment.       That  is  a  very  clear  case. 
112 


Motion  to  Quash  Indictment. 

It  charges  that  they  were  indicted  as  false  traitors,  for  "  That  they, 
"without  this  realm  of  England,  in  France,  in  parts  beyond  sea, 
' '  traitorously  adhered  to  the  King's  enemies  in  the  same  war,  and 
"traitorously  assembled  and  united  themselves  to  and  amongst  the  said 
"enemies  carrying  on  war  against  the  King,  and  comforted,  aided,  and 
"  supported  the  said  enemies  contrary  to  their  allegiance."  Most  of  the 
persons  indicted  were  outlawed,  including  Stafford.  He  subsequently 
surrendered,  and  pleaded  in  bar  some  technical  point  and  produced  letters 
of  pardon,  but  that  does  not  affect  the  case.  It  was  a  clear  case  of  a 
charge  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  without  the  realm,  in  France.  It 
was  a  charge  of  treason,  and  there  was  a  conviction. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Where  is  that  reported? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — It  is  not  reported. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  have  only  got  the  indictment  1 

The  ATTORNET-GENERAL — I  have  the  indictment  from  the  Records. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — Do  you  know  by  whom  it  was  tried? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — They  did  not  come  within  the  realm  to  stand  their 
trial,  and  that  is  why  they  were  outlawed,  as  your  lordships  might  presume. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  looks  rather  like  it. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — That,  again,  throws  a  light  on  the  question 
of  whether  they  committed  an  offence. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Yes,  the  point  is  whether  it  was  an  offence. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORY — How  could  they  be  outlawed  unless  they  had 
committed  an  offence? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — That  is  not  the  point.  My  lord,  Mr.  Justice  Horridge 
asked  where  the  trial  took  place,  and  what  happened  at  the  trial.  I 
was  answering  him  that  there  was  no  trial  because  they  did  not  appear  to 
stand  their  trial. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — That  was  in  answer  to  me,  but  you  have  not 
given  an  answer  to  my  brother  Avory.  You  have  not  answered  whether 
or  not  that  does  not  involve  a  crime. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Of  course,  they  purported  to  be  outlawed  for  a  crime, 
but  what  I  am  pointing  out  is  that  there  was  no  trial. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  can  say  it  is  not  to  be  taken  as  a 
judgment,  because  they  were  not  heard. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — That  is  all. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — They  did  not  come  here  and  submit  them- 
selves to  the  jurisdiction? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — No. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Still  it  shows  that  there  was  a  conviction. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — And  it  shows  what  the  view  of  the  law  then 
was  in  1695. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Then,  my  lord,  the  next  case  I  desire  to  call 
attention  to  is  the  Duke  of  Wharton's  case  in  1729. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Is  that  the  Spanish  case? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes,  my  lord,  in  Spain.  In  that  case,  too, 
we  have  the  indictment.  The  indictment  charged  "That  a  war  was 
"being  carried  on  between  Philip  and  George  I.,  the  former  being  an 
"enemy  of  the  said  King,"  and  "The  Duke  of  Wharton  adhered  to  the 
"  King's  enemies  in  foreign  parts,  and  beyond  the  sea  without  this  realm 
i  113 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

"  of  Great  Britain,  to  wit,  in  the  realm  of  Spain,  alleging  as  an  overt  act 
"  that  he  joined  and  united  himself  to  the  army  of  Philip,  prosecuting  the 
"war  against  King  George  and  attacking  Gibraltar."  Your  lordships 
will  notice  in  this  case  that  both  the  overt  act  and  the  enemies  were 
without  the  realm.  In  this  case  also  the  sentence  was  one  of  outlawry, 
and  here,  again,  the  Duke  of  Wharton  did  not  enter  an  appearance. 

I  have  the  indictment  here  if  I  might  read  two  passages  from  it.  It 
charges  that  "  Philip,  Duke  of  Wharton,  late  of  Westminster,  in  the 
"county  of  Middlesex,  being  a  subject  of  the  said  Lord  the  late  King, 
"  well  knowing  the  premises,  not  having  the  fear  of  God  in  his  heart,  nor 
"  pondering  the  duty  of  his  allegiance,  but  moved  and  seduced  by 
"  instigation  of  the  devil  as  a  false  traitor  against  the  said  Lord,  the 
"  late  King,  his  Sovereign,  true  natural  and  undoubted  Lord,  utterly 
"withdrawing  the  hearty  love  and  due  obedience,  fidelity,  and  allegiance 
"  which  true  and  faithful  subjects  of  the  said  Lord,  the  late  King,  were  of 
"  right  bound  to  bear  towards  the  said  Lord,  the  late  King,  on  the  first 
"  day  of  May,  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  the  said  Lord,  the 
"  late  King,  and  at  divers  other  days  and  times,  as  well  before  as 
"  afterwards,  in  foreign  parts  and  beyond  sea  without  his  realm  of  Great 
"Britain,  to  wit,  in  the  realm  of  Spain,  by  force  of  arms,  &c.,  falsely, 
•"  maliciously,  knowingly,  devilishly  and  treasonably  was  adherent, 
"  aiding,  and  assistant  to  the  same  Philip,  King  of  Spain."  Then  near 
the  end  of  the  indictment  there  come  the  following  words: — "At  which 
"  same  Wednesday  next  after  the  Quinzaine  of  Easter,  before  the  said 
"  Lord  the  King,  that  now  is  at  Westminster,  the  Sheriff  of  the  county  of 
"  Middlesex  aforesaid,  returned  the  aforesaid  writ  of  causing  to  put  in 
"  exigent  to  him  directed  thus  endorsed — By  virtue  of  this  writ  to  me 
"  directed  at  my  county  (Court)  of  Middlesex,  holden  for  the  county  of 
"  Middlesex  aforesaid,  at  the  parish  of  St.  Andrewes  Holborne,  in  that 
"  county  aforesaid,  on  Thursday,  to  wit,  the  twelfth  day  of  December, 
"  in  the  same  year,  within  written,  the  within  named  Philip,  Duke  of 
"  Wharton,  was  first  put  in  exigent,  and  did  not  appear."  So  that  under 
the  King's  writ  pursuant  to  the  statute  the  trial  was  ordered  at  the 
Court  as  specified  in  the  way  I  have  just  read. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — He  did  not  appear. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — He  did  not  appear,  and  was  thereupon 
outlawed. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  seems  to  have  happened  in  many  of 
these  cases. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes,  naturally,  unless  they  happen  to  be 
caught  here. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Do  you  notice  in  that  case  whether  the 
overt  acts  were  without  the  realm? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes,  I  think  they  were  all.  I  will  ask  one 
of  my  learned  friends  to  look  it  up. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  conviction  would  have  been  quite  good 
if  there  was  only  one  overt  act  within  the  realm. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes,  I  think  all  the  overt  acts  and  all  the 
enemies  were  without  the  realm. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Perhaps  Mr.  Bodkin  will  look  and  tell  us. 
114 


Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — If  your  lordship  pleases.  I  am  told  that 
all  the  acts  were  outside  the  realm,  as  my  recollection  was,  and  that  they 
were  all  concerned  with  a  projected  attack  on  Gibraltar. 

The   LORD    CHIEF    JUSTICE — All   the   acts  done   by    Philip,    Duke   of 
Wharton,  were  done  without  the  realm. 
The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes. 

Then,  my  lords,  the  next  case  is  one  of  some  interest  and  importance, 
the  case  of  William  Cundell.  The  only  report  I  have  of  that  ease  is  in 
4  Newgate  Calendar.  We  have  the  indictment,  but  there  is  a  report. 
William  Cundell  was  indicted  for  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  in  the 
Isle  of  France,  and,  as  I  have  said,  the  Crown  has  a  record  of  the  case 
and  a  copy  of  the  indictment. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — What  is  the  date? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — 1812.  It  is  reported  in  volume  iv., 
Newgate  Calendar,  at  page  62.  I  will  read  the  short  facts.  "  In  1808 
"  a  number  of  British  sailors  and  mariners  were  confined  as  prisoners  of 
"  war  in  the  Isle  of  France.  The  prison  being  much  crowded,  was 
"  greatly  incommoded  with  dirt  and  vermin,  and  there  being  no  way  of 
"  escaping  from  such  inconvenience  but  that  of  desertion,  every  art  was 
practised  by  their  keepers  to  induce  the  unhappy  prisoners  to  enter 
the  French  service.  Fifty  men,  among  whom  were  Cundell  and  Smith, 
had  not  virtue  enough  to  resist  the  temptations  on  one  hand,  and  the 
hope  of  escaping  from  distress  and  filth  on  the  other.  They  forgot 
their  country  and  allegiance,  and  put  on  the  enemy's  uniform,  acting 
as  sentinels  over  those  who  were  so  recently  their  companions  in 
captivity.  These  traitors  continued  to  do  duty  with  the  French  until 
the  surrender  of  the  island  to  the  British  forces,  when  C'undell  and  Smith 
with  ten  others  positively  refused  to  accompany  the  enemy,  and  threw 
l<  themselves  upon  the  mercy  of  their  country,  having  immediately 
11  surrendered  to  the  English,  while  the  thirty-eight  others  marched  off  to 
"old  France.  These  culprits  were  now  transmitted  to  England,  and  a 
"  special  commission  was  issued  for  their  trial,  which  took  place  at  the 
"  Surrey  Court-house,  February  6th,  1812.  Cundell,  Smith,  and  five 
"  others  were  found  guilty  of  adhering  to  His  Majesty's  enemies,  when  the 
"  Attorney-General  stated  that  he  thought  the  ends  of  justice  obtained, 
"and  that  he  would  not  press  the  conviction  of  the  remaining  five,  who 
"were  discharged,  not  for  any  want  of  proof  of  their  guilt,  but  through 
"  the  clemency  of  the  Government." 

Then  there  is  the  speech  of  the  Attorney-General,  which  I  do  not  think 
I  need  read.  The  Lord  Chief  Baron  then  proceeded  to  pass  sentence,  and 
there  was  sentence  in  the  ordinary  way,  which  your  lordships  are  familiar 
with.  Then — "  The  prisoners  were  then  reconducted  to  their  cells.  Almost 
"every  individual  in  Court  was  dissolved  in  tears  during  the  melancholy 
"  scene.  On  Monday  morning,  the  16th  March,  1812,  William  Cundell 
"  and  John  Smith,  pursuant  to  their  sentence,  were  hung."  That  is  a 
very  clear  case.  The  indictment,  as  I  have  said,  and  the  record  show 
that  the  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies  was  without  the  realm.  There 
was  a  formal  trial,  and  in  their  presence  they  were  convicted,  and 
executed.  All  the  overt  acts  there  were  in  the  Isle  of  France. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — I  do  not  know  where  the  Isle  of  France  was. 

115 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  think  it  was  in  Mauritius. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGB — And  it  was  owned  by  France. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes,  a  French  colony.  The  war,  of  course, 
was  between  the  French  Government  and  ourselves. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — It  obviously  was  in  their  possession  by  the 
statement  of  the  facts. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Quite. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  is  given  as  an  authority  in  Archbold,  at 
page  1050,  not  exactly  on  this  point,  but  as  an  illustration  of  an  overt  act. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — I  do  not  see  why  it  is  not  an  authority.  It  is 
given  in  fact  on  this  point,  because  it  says,  "  The  words  of  the  Treason 
'•'  Act,  1351,  are  '  or  be  adherent  to  the  enemies  of  our  Lord  the  King  in 
"  '  his  realm,  giving  to  them  aid  or  comfort  in  the  realm  or  elsewhere.'  The 
"  offence  defined  by  these  words  is  '  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  within 
1  the  land  or  without,  and  declaring  the  same  by  some  overt  act.'  ;  The 
three  cases  which  are  nearest  are  Lord  Middleton  and  Others,  The  Duke 
of  Wharton,  and  Cundell. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes,  those,  it  is  submitted,  are  exactly  in 
point,  and,  of  course,  the  earlier  cases  also. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  advantage  of  Cundell  is  that  not  only 
is  it  reported  on  the  facts,  so  that  one  can  see  it  in  the  Calendar,  but  also 
there  was  a  trial. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — Yes. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  other  cases  are  cases  of  outlawry. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes.  My  lords,  the  fact  that  there  are  not 
a  larger  number  of  authorities  in  which  the  matter  has  been  specially  dealt 
with  is,  of  course,  due  to  the  obvious  consideration  that  if  people  have 
committed  acts  of  this  kind  without  the  realm,  they  are  not  in  the  habit 
of  returning  to  the  realm  if  they  can  help  it  so  long  as  the  Power  against 
which  they  conspire  is  ruling  there. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Have  you  looked  at  all  at  paragraph  13  of 
the  case  of  Mulcahy  in  the  House  of  Lords? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  have  sent  for  that  particular  volume. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — What  puzzles  one  is  that  Mr.  Justice  Willes, 
in  giving  the  opinion  of  the  judges,  certainly  uses  language  which,  if 
correctly  reported  in  inverted  commas,  seems  to  be  citing  with  approval 
the  judgment  in  O'Erierfs  catse. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Your  lordship  means  the  passage  in  which 
he  says  it  is  treason  if  the  man  is  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his 
realm  or  elsewhere? 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Yes.  The  importance  of  it  is  that  for  the 
purpose  of  declaring  the  law  he  leaves  out  the  words  which  have  given 
rise  to  so  much  discussion  here,  "  giving  them  aid  and  comfort." 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes,  just  as  Lord  Hale  did. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — If  that  is  right,  it  brings  down  to  the  year 
1868  the  opinion  of  the  judges  of  the  King's  Bench  delivered  by  Mr. 
Justice  Willes  to  the  House  of  Lords  in  answer  to  the  summons,  and  that 
opinion  was  approved  by  the  House  of  Lords,  Lord  Cairns  as  Chancellor. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes. 

116 


Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Although  it  was  not  necessary  for  the 
decision — Mr.  Sullivan  was  quite  right  in  saying  it  is  obiter — it  is  a  very 
high  expression  of  judicial  authority  which  we  cannot  brush  aside  as  mere 
speculation. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — My  learned  friend  dwelt  rather  more  on  the 
fact  that  this  view  was  obiter  than  on  the  fact  that  the  case  in  Dyer  was 
obiter. 

My  lords,  if  I  may  I  will  now  shortly  direct  attention  to  the  dicta  of 
some  of  the  great  authorities  upon  our  common  law.  Some  have  already 
been  mentioned.  I  will  do  it  with  as  much  economy  of  time  as  I  can. 
In  Coke's  Third  Institute,  page  63,  the  enumeration  of  treason  by  the 
learned  author  contains  the  following  dictum: — "  The  fourth  is  adhering 
"  to  the  King's  enemies  within  the  realm  or  without,  and  declaring  the 
"  same  by  some  overt  act." 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  reference  given  in  Archbold  to  that 
passage  is  pages  10  and  11. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  have  the  book  before  me.  "  Adhering  is 
"here  explained,  viz.,  in  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's  enemies 
"within  the  realm  or  without;  delivery  or  surrender  of  the  King's  castles 
"or  forts  by  the  King's  captain  thereof  to  the  King's  enemies  within  the 
"realm  or  without  for  reward,  &o.,  is  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies, 
"and  consequently  treason  declared  by  this  Act." 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — If  it  is  not  inconvenient  to  you,  Mr. 
Attorney,  would  you  refer  us  to  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment  I  think  it  is 
5  Richard  II.  There  is  a  report  there  of  a  trial  which  we  have  not  got.  I 
interpose  because  we  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  trouble  you  to  read 
again  what  is  said  in  Coke's  Institute  unless  there  are  other  passages  you 
wish  to  refer  to.  We  got  it  all  before  us  yesterday. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — If  your  lordship  pleases.  I  find  it  a  little 
difficult  to  translate  the  report  of  the  case,  and  for  some  reason  which  I 
need  not  trouble  to  state  it  was  not  found  possible  last  night  to  get  a 
translator,  but  I  think  I  understand  enough  of  it  to  show  that  there  must 
have  been  some  misapprehension  in  the  mind  of  my  learned  friend  in  the 
account  he  gave  your  lordships  of  it. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  forget  what  particular  case  it  is  cited  in. 
It  is  cited  in  one  of  the  passages  read  to  us  yesterday. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGB — I  think  it  is  Hale. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — There  is  a  reference  in  a  side  note  in  Hale  at 
page  169. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  the  particular  passage  to  which  atten- 
tion was  called  which  I  think  is  the  strongest,  and  which  says  that  at 
common  law  the  offender  might  have  been  indicted  in  any  county  of 
England  if  he  committed  treason  abroad. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes.  I  did  not  select  it  as  among  the  number 
of  authorities  which  I  cited  to  the  Court. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  is  rather  difficult  to  understand. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — It  is  difficult  to  understand.  Not  only  that, 
but  the  dictum  in  question  which  is  quoted  is  a  dictum  not  proceeding 
from  the  Court,  but  from  the  representative  of  the  Crown ;  and  without 
wishing  to  underrate  the  authority  of  such  a  statement  it  did  not  seem  to 
me  to  be  of  the  same  authority  as  a  decision  of  the  judges. 

117 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — No,  except  that  the  representative  of  the 
Crown,  the  King's  Attorney,  who  was  arguing,  treated  it  as  a  matter 
beyond  all  question. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — He  did. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  was  the  only  point. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — That  is  quite  true. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  read  a  few  lines  of  it  to  us  yesterday. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes.  I  am  reading  from  the  translation,  but 
I  can  refer  your  lordships  to  the  passage. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Is  it  under  "  Trial  "  in  Fitzherbert  1 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes.  What  he  says  is  this,  according  to  the 
translation  we  have  had  prepared,  "  If  a  man  be  adherent  to  the  King's 
"  enemies  in  France  his  land  is  forfeitable  and  his  adherence  shall  be  tried 
"  where  his  land  is,  as  has  been  oftentimes  done  in  respect  of  the  adherence 
"to  the  King's  enemies  in  Scotland." 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  the  passage  I  have  before  me.  I 
follow  the  translation  much  better  since  you  have  read  it  to  me  in  English, 
but  I  can  make  out  that  that  is  what  it  is. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  rather  understood  my  learned  friend,  Mr. 
Sullivan,  who  has  evidently  paid  great  attention  and  research  to  these 
matters,  to  suggest  that  this  case 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  did  not  cite  the  case  at  all.  By  mistake  I  went  to 
the  Parliamentary  Rules.  It  is  given  in  Coke  under  "  Catalogue  of  Par- 
"  liamentary  Rules/'  and  I  went  to  the  Rules  and  forgot  Fitzherbert. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  is  a  wrong  reference.  We  did  not  under- 
stand about  Cambridge  being  without  the  realm.  It  seems  clear  now  that 
this  is  the  authority  of  the  King's  Attorney.  It  is  not  a  judgment. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — No,  that  is  quite  true. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — That  was  cited  in  support  of  the  proposition 
that  at  common  law  the  offender  might  have  been  indicted  in  any  county 
of  England,  especially  where  his  lands  lie. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes.  That  is  what  the  Attorney  said  for 
what  it  was  worth.  The  case  itself  refers  to  the  Cardinal  of  Rome  as  far  as 
I  understand  it. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — It  seems  to  me  to  treat  the  law  as  beyond 
question.  That  is  the  point  of  it. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Quite. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — There  is  a  very  learned  argument  to  be 
found  in  one  of  these  cases  by  Sir  John  Campbell  when  he  was  Attorney- 
General  of  the  Crown,  in  which  he  went  through  a  number  of  authorities 
with  reference  to  treason ;  not  the  particular  case  we  have  before  us  to-day 
about  adhering  to  the  King7®  enemies.  You  do  find,  and  no  doubt  you 
will  continue  to  find,  particularly  with  the  advantage  the  Attorney- 
General  has  in  reference  to  the  records  and  Crown  documents,  statements 
as  to  what  happened  which  are  of  great  use. 

The   ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Quite. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  only  other  authority  I  know — you 
will  give  us  any  additional  ones  if  you  think  there  are  any — is  East's  Pleas 
of  the  Crown.  There  is  a  short  reference  to  it  there. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes. 
118 


Motion  to  Quash  Indictment. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  reference  I  have  found  is  in  volume  1  at 
page  80.  "  Englishmen  living  in  a  foreign  country  at  the  time  of  a  rupture 
"  with  us,  and  continuing  there  afterwards,  are  not  on  that  account 
"adherents  to  the  King's  enemies  unless  they  voluntarily  swear  fealty  to 
"  them  or  actually  assist  them  in  the  war;  or,  at  least,  unless  they  refuse 
"  to  return  home,"  and  then  it  goes  on  to  deal  with  something  else.  He 
treats  that  as  being  an  offence  of  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Quite.  At  page  78  your  lordships  will  find 
this  passage — "  In  considering  what  shall  be  deemed  an  adherence  to  the 
"  King's  enemies,  much  of  what  has  been  already  said  under  the  head  of 
"  levying  war  is  equally  applicable.  Those  other  species  of  aid  or  comfort, 
"in  the  words  of  the  statute,  which,  when  given  to  a  rebel  within  the 
"realm,  would  make  the  subject  guilty  of  levying  war;  if  given  to  an 
"  enemy,  whether  within  or  without  the  realm,  will  make  the  party  guilty  of 
"  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  though  in  the  case  of  giving  aid  to 
"  enemies  within  the  realm  a  subject  might,  in  some  instances,  be  brought 
"  within  both  branches  of  the  Act."  "  Whether  within  or  without  the 
"  realm"  is  very  positive  language. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  only  comment  to  be  made  upon  that  is 
this.  I  had  noticed  it,  but  I  thought  it  did  not  advance  us  in  the  argument, 
because  the  aid  may  be  given  to  the  enemy  without  the  realm,  the  actual 
adherence  being  within  the  realm.  That  is  the  point  Mr.  Sullivan  made 
yesterday.  It  is  possible. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — It  is  a  possible  construction.  I  should 
have  thought  when  it  spoke  of  aid  and  comfort  being  given  to  an  enemy 
within  or  without  the  realm  it  was  thinking  of  aid  or  comfort  which 
makes  up  adherence. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  passage  to  which  I  called  attention, 
which  follows  upon  that,  seems  to  make  the  meaning  clear,  and  I  think 
does  give  effect  to  your  construction  of  those  words. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  think  it  does. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — And  he  gives  the  instance:  supposing  an 
Englishman  abroad,  when  we  go  to  war  with  France,  voluntarily  swears 
fealty  to  the  French  King,  that  becomes  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies 
without  the  realm  and  is.  the  offence  of  treason.  There  is  no  doubt  the  whole 
of  the  act  is  done  outside  the  realm. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Quite. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE^ — It  makes  it  quite  plain. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — The  two  passages  taken  together  no 
doubt  do. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  do  not  think  there  is  anything  in  Foster's 
Discourses  of  the  Law  of  Treason  on  this  point.  I  have  looked  at  it 
with  some  care. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — No,  I  do  not  think  there  is.  Now,  my 
lords,  there  are  one  or  two  other  references  I  might  give  to  make  the 
matter  quite  plain.  The  first  is  Alexander  Luders  on  High  Treason. 
At  page  12  the  learned  author  says :  "  The  meaning  of  the  words  '  to  levy 
"  '  war  against  the  King  in  his  realm,  to  adhere  to  his  enemies,  and 
"  '  assist  them  within  the  realm  or  elsewhere,'  must  necessarily  be  the 
"  same  in  this  Act  that  is  in  other  contemporary  instruments  or  writings." 

119 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Then  at  page  13  he  says:  "It  ie  reasonable  to  infer  that  the  war  for- 
(e  bidden  to  be  levied  within  the  realm  was  the  same  kind  of  war  as 
"  might  have  been  levied  without  the  realm,  and  that  the  enemies  not 
"  to  be  adhered  to  were  such  enemies  as  were  capable  of  levying  such 
"  war,  and  of  being  assisted  out  of  the  realm  as  well  as  within  it." 

Then  another  work  of  authority  is  Holbourne's  Readings,  1681,  at 
pages  12  and  13.  He  is  dealing  with  the  various  heads  of  treason,  and 
he  says:  "  The  fourth  part  is  to  adhere  to  the  King's  enemies.  Aiding 
lt  the  enemies  within  or  without,  is  an  aiding  of  those  that  come  into  the 
"land  or  of  those  who  are  without.  Aiding  is  by  sending  them  aid,  as 
"  of  victuals  or  of  weapons  and  the  like,  by  giving  them  counsel,  or  by 
"  other  ways,  whereby  they  may  receive  strength  or  comfort  from  him." 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Yes.  The  same  observation  applies  to 
that  as  to  several  of  them!  You  may  aid  and  comfort  the  King's 
enemies  without  the  realm  by  an  act  which  you  do  within  the  realm, 
and  in  order  to  come  within  the  proposition  we  are  now  discussing,  you 
must  get  both  the  act  of  adherence  by  the  person  and  also  the  aid  to  the 
enemy  without  the  realm,  must  you  not? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  think  that  is  so. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  the  difficulty  of  some  of  these 
passages.  For  example,  Bending  a  letter  giving  information  to  the 
enemy  would  be  to  aid  the  enemy  without  the  realm,  but  the  act  is  done 
within  the  realm. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes.  It  may  be  that  in  some  of  these  dicta 
the  language  might  cover  one  or  the  other. 

I  think  I  have  now  referred  your  lordships  to  the  authorities  as  far 
as  they  are  known  to  me.  My  submission  ie  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
common  law  has  treated  acts  of  adherence  without  the  realm  as  being 
treason;  that  the  meaning  of  the  statute  of  King  Edward  III.  is  not 
ambiguous,  but  that  it  also  treats  adherence  without  the  realm  as  fall- 
ing under  one  of  the  heads  of  treason ;  that  no  controversy  has  ever  been 
raised  which  would  tend  to  show — whether  such  an  act,  that  is  to  say, 
adherence  without  the  realm,  was  triable  in  this  country  or  not — that 
it  was  not  an  offence;  that  it  has  never  been  contended  in  any  text- 
book or  in  any  Court  of  law  from  the  time  when  the  statute  of  King 
Edward  III.  was  passed  to  the  present  day,  as  far  as  I  am  aware,  with 
one  possible  exception,  that  whether  triable  or  not,  adherence  without 
the  realm  was  an  offence,  and  the  offence  of  treason;  that  the  statute  of 
Henry  VIII.  which  dealt  with  procedure  denned  clearly  the  circum- 
stances under  which  such  treason  should  be  justiciable  in  this  country; 
and  that  the  whole  current  of  opinion  amongst  those  who  have  been 
treated  as  authorities  upon  these  matters  is  in  one  direction  when  they 
construe  the  statute  of  King  Edward  III.  and  the  common  law  before 
it;  and  whether  one  takes  the  great  authorities  who  have  written  upon 
the  common  law  of  England,  or  whether  one  takes  the  opinion  of  all  the 
judges  carrying  on  a  long  and  most  impressive  weight  of  judicial  and 
other  opinion  from  the  earliest  times  till  the  year  1868,  it  is  impossible 
to  resist  the  conclusion  that  an  act  of  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies 
without  the  realm  was  and  is  justiciable  in  the  Courts  of  this  country. 
120 


Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

My  lords,  I  have  one  observation  to  make  in  conclusion.  I  have 
indicated  that  the  matter  was  much  discussed  in  The  King  v.  Lynch. 
The  official  report  in  the  Law  Reports  hardly  illustrates  the  extent  to 
which  the  matter  was  discussed,  but  it  was  presented  with  tsome  con- 
siderable weight  of  argument  to  the  Court,  and  an  answer  not  without 
elaboration  was  made  by  the  then  Attorney-General,  and  it  was  dealt  with, 
or  pronounced  upon  by  the  Court;  and  it  is  certainly  a  circumstance 
which  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  conviction  itself  in  The  King 
v.  Lynch,  had  this  doctrine  been  well  founded,  would  have  been  wrong. 
It  is  an  extremely  recent  authority,  establishing,  as  I  have  isaid,  that 
the  whole  trend  and  weight  of  judicial  and  other  authority  has  been  in 
the  same  direction. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  only  difficulty  is  that  in  Lynch' s  case, 
notwithstanding  that  there  was  a  learned  and  somewhat  elaborate  argument, 
the  Court  pronounced  no  judgment  upon  it,  but  proceeded  to  deal  with  the 
case  as  if  the  argument  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  defence  was  ill  founded, 
otherwise  the  summing  up  of  the  learned  Chief  Justice  and  the  convic- 
tion must  have  been  wrong. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  think  one  cannot  resist  the  conclusion, 
when  one  notices  in  what  a  cavalier  manner,  if  I  may  use  the  expression, 
the  learned  judge  dealt  with  the  argument,  that  it  had  not  made  a  very 
deep  impression  upon  his  mind.  We  must  draw  that  inference.  The 
fact  is  that  the  conviction  took  place,  and  it  could  not  have  taken  place 
had  this  contention  been  well  founded.  So  that  your  lordships  have  the 
earliest  authorities  and  the  most  recent  authority,  and  my  submission 
to  the  Court  is  that  this  objection  is  ill  founded  and  cannot  be  supported. 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — My  lords,  I  do  not  propose  to  follow  my  learned 
friend  over  the  authorities  which  have  been  quoted.  I  desire  to  deal 
first  of  all  with  the  case  of  The  King  v.  Lynch,  which  is  the  only 
authority  we  have  to  get  over  as  regards  the  wording  of  the  statute. 
It  is  perfectly  true,  as  your  lordships  have  pointed  out,  that  a  judgment 
in  The  King  v.  Lynch  was  not  delivered,  but  it  is  clear  from  the  short- 
hand notes  of  the  proceedings  what  the  view  was  that  the  then  Lord 
Chief  Justice  took.  His  view  was  that  The  King  v.  Vcwghcm  was  an 
authority  which  expressly  overruled  the  view  which  was  then  put  for- 
ward on  behalf  of  Lynch.  Why  it  was  that  the  facts  of  The  King  v. 
Vaughan  were  not  gone  into  I  do  not  know,  but  it  is  clear  from  the 
indictment  in  The  King  v.  Vaughcm  that  it  lends  no  authority  to  the 
view  which  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  then  took.  The  first  count  alleged 
acts  committed  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Admiralty,  and,  I  think, 
in  the  second  count  hostile  acts  were  alleged  within  the  dominion  of  the 
King. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — We  have  already  expressed  our  view  upon 
that.  You  are  quite  justified  in  referring  to  it,  and  there  has  been  no 
argument  to  the  contrary.  The  King  v.  Vaughan  is  no  authority  against 
you. 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — If  your  lordship  pleases.  With  regard  to  the 
ancient  writers  which  have  been  quoted,  I  propose  humbly  to  follow  my 
learned  friend,  the  Attorney-General,  subject  only  to  this  observation. 

121 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

The  question  which  your  lordships  have  to  determine  is  the  construction 
of  the  words  of  an  Act  of  Parliament,  and  the  primary  duty  in  the  con- 
struction of  a  statute  is  to  take  the  language  of  the  statute  itself,  pro- 
vided it  is  free  from  ambiguity.  My  submission  is  that  if  you  look  at 
the  words  of  the  statute  no  ambiguity  can  arise  from  them.  I  notice  that 
your  lordship  was  reading  the  words  of  the  statute  from  Archbold 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — No,  I  was  not.  I  read  them  from  the 
revised  statutes  with  the  Norman  French  on  the  other  side. 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — I  have  looked  at  the  actual  statute  itself,  and 
I  have  something  to  say  about  that,  because  a  good  deal  depends  upon 
the  grammatical  construction  of  these  words.  I  suggest  that  the  punctua- 
tion marks  and  other  things  set  out  in  Chitty  and  Archbold  do  not 
actually  appear  upon  the  document  itself. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  have  looked  at  a  number  of  copies,  repro- 
ductions of  this  Act,  in  the  revised  statutes  and  elsewhere,  containing 
Luder'fi  translation,  and  I  have  found  that  the  commas  vary  in  almost 
every  case;  and  apparently,  according  to  the  interpretation  that  the 
author  wished  to  give,  he  has  inserted  the  commas.  You  can  take  up 
some  authors  and  you  will  find  the  commas  that  make  it  so  plain  that 
you  wonder  that  there  can  be  any  dispute  about  it;  you  can  take  up 
another  which  makes  "  aiding  and  comforting  "  run  on  to  the  "  else- 
"  where  "  without  a  comma.  So  I  think  we  have  to  start  with  this,  that 
commas  have  no  place  in  the  discussion  before  this  Court. 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — Might  I  supplement  that  by  pointing  out  that 
Coke,  who  is  treated  with  so  much  veneration,  actually  misspells  the 
word.  It  is  clear,  if  he  had  taken  the  trouble  to  go  to  the  statute  itself, 
he  would  not  have  made  that  mistake.  Might  I  refer  your  lordships  to 
what  is  known  as  the  Record  Office  version  of  the  statute.  Your  lord- 
ships will  remember  that  a  Commission  was  appointed  somewhere  in  the 
reign  of  George  III.  to  get  the  statutes  together,  and  an  official  version  was 
published  in  the  year  1810,  which  sets  out  on  one  side  the  actual  Norman- 
French  words  printed  in  the  characters,  with  the  contracted  forms 
and  abbreviations  that  were  current  at  that  time,  and  on  the  other  side 
you  have  the  translation.  My  submission  to  your  lordships  is  that  the 
construction  which  the  learned  Attorney-General  seeks  to  put  upon  these 
words  cannot  be  maintained,  because  that  construction  is  repugnant  to 
the  express  terms  of  the  statute  itself.  That  is  my  proposition.  The 
recital  begins  in  these  words  :  "  Whereas  divers  opinions  have  been  before 
"  this  time  in  what  case  treason  shall  be  said  and  in  what  not;  The  King 
"  at  the  request  of  his  Lords  and  of  the  Commons  hath  made  a  declara- 
"  tion  in  the  manner  as  hereinafter  f olloweth :  That  is  to  say,  when  a 
"  man  doth  compass  or  imagine  the  death  of  our  Lord  the  King,  or  of 
"  our  Lady  his  Queen, "  and  so  on,  "  or  if  a  man  do  levy  war  against 
"  our  Lord  the  King  in  his  realm  " — those  are  the  words  of  limitation 
which  must  refer  either  to  the  enemy  or  to  the  person  charged — "or  be 
"  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his  realm  " — exactly  the  same  words 
of  limitation  which  must  apply  either  to  the  enemy  or  to  the  person 
charged,  and  which  I  suggest  are  words  of  limitation  defining  the  limits 
within  which  the  act  of  adherence  must  be  committed.  Then  it  goes  on  : 

122 


Motion  to   Quash  Indictment. 

"  Giving  to  them  aid  and  comfort  in  the  realm  or  elsewhere."  It  is 
a  little  difficult  to  understand  how  the  Attorney-General  can  say  that 
those  words  ' '  or  elsewhere ' '  should  be  in  fact  transferred  from  where 
they  are  put  into  another  part,  added  to  the  preceding  words.  If 
the  learned  Attorney-General  is  right  in  his  construction,  Parliament 
could  have  meant  nothing  when  it  put  in  these  words,  "  in  his  realm." 
Supposing  you  strike  out  the  words  "  in  his  realm  "  in  both  offences, 
this  is  how  the  sentence  would  read:  "  If  a  man  do  levy  war  against  our 
"  Lord  the  King,  or  be  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies,  giving  to  them 
"  aid  and  comfort  in  his  realm  or  elsewhere."  Then  the  construction 
which  the  learned  Attorney-General  puts  upon  it  would  no  doubt  be 
sound,  but  he  cannot  put  that  construction  forward,  because  Parliament 
must  not  be  presumed  to  have  meant  nothing  when  it  used  these  words 
of  limitation.  If  I  may  borrow  the  language  of  the  advocate  who 
argued  the  case  of  The  King  v.  Lynch,  such  a  construction  as  this  gives 
the  go-by  altogether  to  these  words  of  limitation.  I  submit  that  what 
the  statute  of  Edward  III.  had  in  mind  when  it  used  these  words,  "  giving 
"  to  them  aid  and  comfort  in  the  realm,"  was  the  particular  form  which 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  might  assume,  and  against  which  they 
were  legislating. 

I  submit  to  your  lordships,  with  the  greatest  respect  not  only  to  the 
ancient  writers  but  also  to  His  Majesty's  judges,  that  in  the  construction 
of  an  Act  of  Parliament  the  supreme  authority  is  the  language  of  the  Act 
itself,  and  the  function  of  your  lordships  is  simply  to  give  to  them,  to 
quote  the  words  of  Chief  Justice  Jarvis,  the  elementary  rule  of  inter- 
pretation, giving  to  ordinary  and  plain  words  their  plain  and  ordinary 
meaning.  If  the  wording  of  the  statute  admitted  of  any  other  meaning, 
I  agree  that  the  interpretation  put  forward  by  the  learned  Attorney- 
General  might  be  upheld. 

There  is  one  point,  and  that  is  with  reference  to  the  Indictment 
Act  of  last  year.  The  Lord  Chief  Justice  yesterday  went  to  the  heart  of 
the  whole  controversy  when  he  said  the  question  was  whether  the  words 
"  or  elsewhere "  governed  the  words  immediately  preceding  them,  or 
governed  the  rest. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Or  governed  both. 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — Or  governed  both.  On  the  other  hand,  they 
may  be  purely  descriptive  words.  If  they  are  words  of  description  and 
not  words  of  definition,  then  I  submit  the  construction  put  forward  by 
the  learned  Attorney-General  cannot  be  upheld.  The  view  which  the 
learned  counsel  took  who  framed  this  indictment  is  exactly  the  same  view 
as  that  which  I  am  putting  before  this  Court.  May  I  refer  your  lord- 
ships to  section  3  of  the  Indictment  Act  of  last  year. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — Supposing  it  is,  is  he  a  greater  authority 
than  Hale  or  anybody  else?  How  can  it  help  us  that  somebody  who 
framed  the  indictment  before  us  took  a  particular  view? 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — I  may  be  wrong,  but  I  was  under  the  impression 
that  I  was  discussing  the  indictment  in  this  case. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORRIDGE — How  can  it  help  us  if  the  indictment  covers 
the  offence?  We  can  draw  the  inference  ae  well  as  the  man  who 
drew  it. 

123 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — Put  in  that  form  I  agree,  but  I  think  your  lord- 
ship will  see  the  point  of  my  argument  when  I  have  developed  it. 
Section  3  of  the  Indictment  Act  says :  "  Every  indictment  shall  contain 
"  and  shall  be  sufficient  if  it  contains  a  statement  of  the  specific  offence 
<e  or  offences  with  which  the  accused  person  is  charged,  together  with 
"  such  particulars  as  may  be  necessary  for  giving  reasonable  informa- 
"  tion  as  to  the  nature  of  the  charge."  Under  the  rules,  I  think  it  is 
Rule  4,  sub-section  3,  "  The  statement  of  offence  shall  describe  the 
"offence  shortly  in  ordinary  language,  avoiding  as  far  as  possible  the 
"  use  of  technical  terms,  and  without  necessarily  stating  all  the  essential 
"  elements  of  the  offence,  and  if  the  offence  charged  is  one  created  by 
"  statute,  shall  contain  a  reference  to  the  section  of  the  statute  creating 
"  the  offence." 

Now,  if  your  lordships  turn  to  the  indictment  here,  the  statement 
of  the  offence  and  the  reference  to  the  statute  creating  it  is  set  out  in  a 
sentence:  "High  treason  by  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  elsewhere 
than  in  the  King's  realm,  to  wit,  in  the  Empire  of  Germany,  contrary 
to  the  Treason  Act,  1351."  Then  particulars  follow,  and  in  the  par- 
ticulars the  Crown  allege  that  "  On  the  said  several  days  traitorously  con- 
triving and  intending  to  aid  and  assist  the  said  enemies  of  our  Lord 
the  King  against  our  Lord  the  King  and  his  subjects,  did  traitorously 
adhere  to  and  aid  and  comfort  the  said  enemies,"  showing  clearly  that 
the  learned  counsel  who  framed  this  indictment  treated  those  words, 
"  aiding  and  comforting,"  merely  as  words  of  description;  and  they  appear 
in  the  particulars  under  the  statute  which  says  you  must  give  particulars 
which  may  not  give  all  the  necessary  ingredients  of  the  offence,  but  shall 
at  least  give  information  as  to  the  nature  of  the  offence.  The  submission 
I  make  to  the  Court  is  that  if  the  view  of  the  Crown  is  that  those  words 
"  aiding  and  comforting  "  are  words  of  definition  and  not  words  of 
description,  it  was  not  the  view  of  the  learned  counsel  who  framed 
the  indictment,  because  he  treats  them  as  descriptive  words  and  descrip- 
tive words  alone.  To  go  back  to  the  statute  once  more,  I  have  only  put 
very  shortly  the  point  that  I  make,  namely,  that  the  construction  which 
the  Crown  is  putting  upon  these  words  is  actually  repugnant  to  the  words 
of  the  statute  itself.  You  must  wipe  out  altogether  those  words  "  within 
"  his  realm,"  which  appear  in  both  offences,  before  you  can  put  this  con- 
struction upon  the  statute;  and  that  being  so  I  submit  with  deference 
to  your  lordships  that  the  argument  put  forward  on  behalf  of  the 
defendant  is  a  valid  and  substantial  one. 

[Their  lordships  conferred.] 


Judgment  on  Motion  to  Quash  Indictment. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — A  submission  has  been  made  to  the  Court 

by  the  defence  that  this  indictment  should  be  quashed  on  the  ground  that 

it  discloses  no   offence   known  to   the   English   law.        Another   way   of 

putting  the  eame  proposition  is  that  the  Court  should  rule,  according  to 

124 


Judgment  on  Motion  to   Quash  Indictment. 

the  contention  of  the  defence,  that  the  Crown  has  failed  to  prove  an 
offence  in  law.  The  prisoner  is  charged  with  that  species  of  treason 
which  is  known  as  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies.  The  charge  in  the 
indictment  is  the  offence  of  "  high  treason  by  adhering  to  the  King's 
"  enemies  elsewhere  than  in  the  King's  realm,  to  wit,  in  the  Empire  of 
"  Germany,  contrary  to  the  Treason  Act,  1351."  The  argument  advanced 
and  supported  by  careful,  well-reasoned,  and  able  arguments  of  Mr. 
Sullivan  and  those  who  supported  his  contention  is  to  the  effect  that 
adherence  to  the  King's  enemies  without  the  realm  is  not  an  offence 
against  the  statute  of  Edward  III.,  that  is  to  say,  the  statute  of  1351. 
We  have  had  the  advantage  of  elaborate  arguments,  by  no  means  too 
elaborate  on  behalf  of  the  defence,  and  also  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  by  the 
Attorney-General;  and  although  this  point  has  been  discussed  many  times 
in  the  books,  and  decided,  according  to  our  view,  in  the  most  recent 
case  of  treason,  Lynch' s  case,  yet  it  merits  careful  examination  by  this 
Court.  The  argument  is  that  this  Court  must  construe  the  words  of  the 
statute  of  1351  and  must  pay  no  regard  to  any  commentary  that  may 
have  been  made  by  learned  authors,  however  distinguished,  when  arriving* 
at  the  meaning  of  the  words.  That  we  must  interpret  the  words  of  the 
statute  is  beyond  question.  That  we  should  not  be  entitled  to  do  violence 
to  the  words  of  the  statute  may,  I  think,  also  be  assumed. 

But  if  the  words  of  the  statute  are  not  clear,  and  if  it  be  possible  to 
construe  the  statute  in  two  different  ways,  then  the  comments  of  great 
lawyers,  masters  of  the  common  law,  during  the  last  three  or  four 
centuries,  cannot  be  allowed  to  pass  by  this  Court  without  the  greatest 
regard  and  consideration.  The  words  in  question,  in  the  statute 
25  Edward  III.  are  these — paraphrasing  them — "  It  shall  be  treason  if 
"  a  man  do  levy  war  against  our  Lord  the  King  in  his  realm  or  be 
"  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his  realm,  giving  to  them  aid  and 
"  comfort  in  the  realm  or  elsewhere."  The  contention  is  that  those 
words  "  or  elsewhere  "  govern  only  the  words  "  aid  and  comfort  in  the 
"realm,"  and  have  no  application  to  the  words  "  be  adherent  to  the 
11  King's  enemies."  As  the  offence  is  of  adhering  to  the  King's 
enemies,  if  the  words  "  or  elsewhere  "  do  not  apply  to  the  adhering, 
then  the  contention  of  the  defence  would  be  right.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Crown's  contention  is  correct  that  those  words  "  or  elsewhere  " 
do  govern  the  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  then  it  is  plain  that  it  is 
an  offence  to  adhere  to  the  King's  enemies  by  an  act  committed  without 
the  realm.  In  order  to  avoid  ambiguity  I  would  add  also  this,  that  to 
constitute  the  offence  for  this  purpose  it  is  not  sufficient  to  show  that 
the  aid  and  comfort  has  been  given  to  enemies  without  the  realm.  Th& 
act  of  adherence  which  constitutes  the  charge  also  must  have  been  com- 
mitted without  the  realm  for  this  purpose,  because  the  whole  of  this 
indictment  is  based  upon  the  offence  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies 
without  the  realm. 

Now,  I  repeat  what  I  said  during  the  course  of  the  argument,  that 
we  must  construe  these  words  of  this  statute,  now  some  560  years  old, 
without  reference  to  commas  or  brackets,  but  merely  looking  to  the 
language.  The  history  of  the  law  of  treason  of  this  country  is  certainly 
of  importance  in  considering  the  statute  of  1351.  It  is  unnecessary  at 

125 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

this  time,  and  having  regard  to  the  authorities  to  which  I  shall  call 
attention  in  a  moment,  to  refer  in  great  detail  to  the  early  law;  but  I 
have  no  hesitation  myself  in  stating  that  if  a  man  adhere  to  the  King's 
enemies  without  the  realm  he  is  committing  the  offence  of  treason ;  that 
he  was  committing  the  offence  of  treason  at  common  law,  notwithstand- 
ing that  the  offence  was  committed  without  the  realm.  We  have  heard 
considerable  argument  to  establish  that  the  common  law  of  England  never 
knew  a  crime  which  was  not  committed  within  the  territory  of  England, 
that  is  to  say,  in  ancient  times,  of  course;  and  it  is  said  the  common 
law  of  England  still  obtains  except  in  so  far  as  it  has  been  altered  by 
statute.  There  is  some  authority  for  the  proposition  which  I  have  stated 
to  which  I  mean  to  refer,  which  is  in  Sir  Matthew  Hale's  Pleas  of  the 
Crown,  vol.  1,  page  169,  in  which  he  says :  "  Touching  the  trial  of  foreign 
treason,  viz.,  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  without  the  kingdom  at 
this  day  the  statute  of  35  Henry  VIII.  hath  sufficiently  provided  for 
it  " ;  and  this  is  the  passage  upon  which  I  lay  special  stress:  "  But 
at  common  law  he  might  have  been  indicted  in  any  county  of  England, 
and  especially  where  the  offender's  lands  lie,  if  he  have  any." 

The  reference  is  given  for  that  to  a  case  in  the  fifth  year  of  the  reign 
of  Kichard  II.,  which  ie  to  be  found  in  Fitzherbert's  Abridgment,  under 
the  heading  of  "  Trial,"  section  54.  The  substance  of  it — I  am  not 
quoting  the  exact  words — is  that  the  then  King's  Attorney  stated  to  the 
Court,  and  apparently,  so  far  as  one  can  judge  from  the  report,  without 
any  contradiction  by  the  Court,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  without  any  con- 
tradiction to  be  found  in  any  book  up  to  this  very  day,  that  that  was 
the  law,  and  it  was  adopted  as  the  law  by  Sir  Matthew  Hale  in  the 
passage  which  I  have  read.  I  will  make  this  observation  with  reference 
to  the  common  law,  that  it  is  quite  right  to  say — it  might  be  said — that 
whatever  may  have  been  the  common  law  ought  not  to  affect  our  decision 
in  determining  the  interpretation  of  the  statute.  I  will  accept  that  and 
say  we  must  construe  the  language  of  the  statute  even  though  that  statute 
is  declaratory  of  the  common  law;  but  it  is  a  matter  not  lightly  to  be 
passed  by  that  the  common  law  before  the  statute  was,  in  my  opinion,  as 
I  have  stated  it.  It  has  been  said  more  than  once,  certainly  by  Lord 
Blackburn  and  others,  that  this  statute  of  1351  was  declaratory  of  the 
•common  law.  There  is  no  doubt  that  at  that  time  there  was  great  agita- 
tion amongst  the  subjects  of  the  King  because  of  the  fear  of  the  conse- 
quence of  being  charged  with  treason,  which  was  a  crime  at  that  time  so 
vague,  or  thought  to  be  so  vague,  that  those  who  might  be  charged  with 
it  were  apprehensive  of  the  consequences;  and  the  result  was  that  on 
petition  to  Parliament  the  statute  then  became  law  and  received  the 
assent  of  the  King  in  the  words  to  which  I  have  referred. 

Now  from  the  year  1351  until  the  thirty -fifth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.,  there  is  little  to  assist  us;  but  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII. 
a  statute  was  passed  which  in  my  view  is  of  importance  in  this  connection. 
The  statute  is  entitled  "  An  Acte  concerninge  the  triall  of  Treasons 
"  comytted  out  of  the  King's  Majesties  domynions."  It  recites — again 
I  am  paraphrasing  the  language — that  doubts  and  questions  had  arisen 
as  to  the  trial  of  treasons  and  misprisions  of  treasons  committed  abroad. 
126 


Judgment  on  Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  doubts  had  not  arisen   as  to  whether  the 
act,  if  committed  abroad,  would  amount  to  treason,  but  only  as  to  the 
trial.     Then  the  statute  proceeds :    "  Be  it  enacted  by  authority  of  this 
"  present  Parliament  that  all  manner  of  offences  being  already  made  or 
f(  declared  or  hereafter  to  be  made  or  declared  by  any  of  the  laws  and 
"  statutes  of  this  realm  to  be  treasons,"  then   "  shall  be  tried  by  the 
"  King's  Justices57 — that  is  the  King's  Bench,   and  also  as  an  alterna- 
tive   by    Commissioners   where   a   Commission    is    appointed.     Now,   that 
statute  assumes  that  the  offence  of  treason   can  be  -committed  without 
the  realm;    and  it   prescribes    in   respect  of   all   such   offences    as   have 
already  been  declared  the  niode  of  procedure,    or,  rather,   the  venue   of 
the   trial.     The    statute   shows   plainly   that   the  offence    existed.     From 
that  time  the  statute  has  regulated  the  trial  of  offences  committed  with- 
out the  realm- 
It  is  by  virtue  of  that  statute  and  subsequent  statutes,  which  have 
really  done  nothing  more  than  provide  that  the  counties  of  London  and 
Middlesex  shall  be  one  county  for  this  purpose,  that  the  jurisdiction  of 
this   Court   is  derived.     It   is   because   we   are   sitting   as    judges  of   the 
King's  Bench  that  we  become  the  judges  to  try  this  case,  for  the  reason 
that  if  it  is   a  treason  committed  without  the  realm,  the  venue  is  pre- 
scribed by  this  statute  of  Henry  VIII.   as   of  the  King's  justices   where 
they  isit  and  be  kept.     That  statute   of  Henry  VIII.    is,  to  my   mind, 
authority   for   this   proposition,    at  least  it  ehows   clearly   what   the  law 
was  at  the  time  it  was  passed.     That  there  was  the  offence  of  treason 
without  the  realm;  and  further,  quite  consistent  with  the  reading  which 
the  Crown  wishes  to  give  to  the  statute  of  1351,  it  would  apply  to  the 
offence    of  adhering  to   the   King's  enemies    without   the  realm.        The 
doubts  that  have  arisen  from  beginning  to  end,  so  far  as  we  have  been 
able  to  trace  in  looking  through  the  various  books  to  which  we  have  had 
access,  and  to  which  our  attention  has  been  called,  are  never  as  to  the 
offence,   but  only  as  to  the  venue;   and  the  whole  difficulty  which  arose 
was,  as  was  pointed  out  by  learned  authors,  and  more  especially  in  Hawkins' 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,   book  2,  chapter  25,  section  48,   where  this  matter 
is  dealt  with  in  passages  that  have  been  read,  and  of  which  I  will  only 
read  one  short  passage  now,  as  to  the  venue.       There  the  learned  author 
says:    "  It  seems  to  have  been  a  great  doubt  before  the  making  of  the 
"  statute  of  35  Henry  VIII.  in  what  manner  and  in  what  place  high  treason 
' (  done  out  of  the  realm  was  to  be  tried  ' ' — there  is  not  the  faintest  sugges- 
tion that  the  offence  did  not  exist,  but  only  a  doubt  as  to  the  manner 
and  place  of  trial — "  for  some  seem  to  have  holden  that  it  was  triable 
11  only  by  an  appeal  before  the  constable  and  marshal;  others,   that   it 
"  might  be  tried  upon  an  indictment,  laying  the  offence  in  any  county 
"  where  the  King  pleased;  and  others,  that  it  was  triable  by  way  of 
(e  indictment  in  that  county  only  wherein  the  offender  had  lands ;    but 
"  surely  it  cannot  reasonably  be  doubted  but  that  it  was  triable   some 
"  way    or  other;    for    it    cannot   be   imagined  that    an    offence  of    such 
' '  dangerous    consequence,    and    expressly    within    the    purview    of     25 
''  Edward   III.,  should   be   wholly  dispunishable,    as   it  must   have   been 
"if  it  were  no  way  triable."     I  am  content  to  adopt  every  word  of  that 

127 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

language  of  that  great  master  of  the  law,  and  also  of  Sir  Matthew  Hale, 
whom  I  have  just  quoted.  The  only  observation  I  wish  to  make  upon 
it  is  that  the  defence  would  say,  as  Mr.  Sullivan  pointed  out,  and  I 
think  rightly,  that  upon  this  section  48  it  does  not  follow  that  the  mean- 
ing must  be  given  to  the  words  now  under  discussion,  because  it  is  isaid 
there  were  other  offences  of  treason  without  the  realm.  But  equally  it 
must  be  observed  that  there  is  no  exception  drawn  for  this  statement, 
and  there  is  nothing  which  would  support  the  exception  being  made 
save  the  interpretation  of  the  statute  contended  for  by  the  defence.  I  can 
find  no  justification  for  doubting  that  these  learned  authors  meant  their 
language  to  apply  equally  to  a  case  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies 
without  the  realm  as  to  any  other  kind  of  offence  of  treason  without 
the  realm. 

I  will  not  read  again  the  passage  in  Coke's  Institutes,  but  in  volume  3 
there  is  a  statement  of  the  law  which  is  plain  in  its  terms,  and  which 
Mr.  Sullivan  quite  frankly  stated  was  an  authority  against  him  if  the 
Court  accepted  it  as  an  authority.  The  passages  have  been  read  so 
often  that  I  do  not  propose  to  read  them  again.  They  are  to  be  found 
in  chapter  1  of  the  Third  Institute  of  Coke,  on  pages  10  and  11. 

Then,  coming  to  the  later  days,  there  are  passages  in  a  case  in 
1868,  MulcaTvy  v.  The  Queen.,  reported  in  Law  Reports,  3  English  and 
Irish  Appeal  Cases,  at  page  306,  in  which  Mr.  Justice  Willes,  in 
giving  his  opinion  of  the  law  relating  to  treason  to  the  House  of  Lords 
— not  only  his  opinion  but  the  opinion  of  all  the  judges — adopted  the 
construction  of  the  words  of  the  statute  of  1351,  that  the  offence  was 
committed  if  a  person  be  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his  realm 
or  elsewhere.  He  leaves  out  the  words  which  have  given  rise  to  this 
discussion,  that  is,  "  giving  them  aid  and  comfort."  The  views  were 
adopted  by  the  House  of  Lords.  It  is  right  here  again  to  say  that  Mr. 
Sullivan  pointed  out,  and  again  I  say  in  my  judgment  accurately,  that 
these  observations  of  Mr.  Justice  Willes  were  by  the  way;  they  were 
obiter]  but  nevertheless  they  were  the  considered  opinion  of  the  judges 
to  the  House  of  Lords,  and  the  House  of  Lords  did  not  dissent  from  any 
one  of  the  views  expressed. 

Then  at  last  we  come  to  the  decision  of  The  King  v.  Lynch,  decided 
in  1903.  There  the  same  argument  was  advanced  by  the  defence  that 
has  been  put  forward  before  us,  and  it  was  persisted  in  and  elaborately 
argued.  The  Court  there  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  defendant's 
contention  was  wrong,  and,  although  it  gave  no  judgment,  the  then 
Lord  Chief  Justice  proceeded  to  sum  up  and  directed  the  jury  as  if  it 
was  an  offence.  Lynch  was  convicted  by  the  jury,  and  if  the  argument 
of  the  defence  is  right  in  this  case,  Lynch  never  should  have  been  con- 
victed, and  the  Court  ought  to  have  ruled  that  no  offence  had  been  dis- 
closed either  by  the  evidence  or  in  the  indictment.  The  Court  did  not 
so  rule,  but  on  the  contrary  directed  the  jury  upon  the  assumption  that 
the  offence  was  disclosed  if  the  jury  took  a  particular  view  of  the  facts. 

Now,  that  is  a  current  of  authority  which  is  strong.  I  will  not 
pass  over  the  case  in  Dyer  to  which  our  attention  was  called,  and  upon 
which  much  reliance  was  placed  by  Mr.  Sullivan.  His  argument  was 
128 


Judgment  on  Motion  to   Quash  Indictment. 

that  when  you  look  at  that  case  you  will  find  that  there  it  was  asserted 
that  there  was  no  such  offence  known  to  the  common  law  as  treason 
committed  out  of  the  realm;  and,  indeed,  he  went  further,  that  no  such 
offence  was  known  to  the  law  at  all,  because  no  means  had  been  found  of 
trying  the  offence  until  the  statute  of  35  Henry  VIII.  But  on  examina- 
tion of  the  case  in  Dyer — 2  Dyer,  page  131  (6) — it  is  clear  it  is  not  a  judg- 
ment at  all;  it  is  a  memorandum  of  the  judge®  and  the  King's  Serjeants, 
some  doubt  having  arisen  as  to  whether  a  statute  of  1  &  2  Philip  and  Mary 
had  overruled  the  statute  35  Henry  VIII.  in  so  far  as  that  statute  declared 
that  treasons  without  the  realm  should  be  tried  by  the  judges  of  the  King's 
Bench.  The  result  was  that  they  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  statute  of 
Henry  VIII.  was  not  overruled,  and  reliance  was  placed  before  us  upon 
these  words,  "  because  no  offence  of  treason  committed  out  of  the  realm 
"  was  triable  here  by  the  course  of  the  common  law."  The  first  com- 
ment upon  that  is  this.  It  assumes  that  there  was  an  offence  of  treason 
committed  out  of  the  realm,  but  the  difficulty  was  that  it  was  not  known 
how  it  was  triable  by  the  course  of  the  common  law,  and  all  that  the 
learned  judges  did — the  judges  and  the  Master  of  the  Rolls  there 
assembled — was  to  declare  what  they  thought  was  the  effect  of  this 
statute  1  &  2  Philip  and  Mary.  It  does  not  touch  the  question  which 
is  now  being  argued  before  us.  It  does  not  assume  that  at  common 
law  there  was  no  offence  of  treason  without  the  realm.  It  is  the  opposite. 
The  only  difficulty  again,  such  as  one  finds  running  through  centuries 
of  our  law,  is  as  to  the  procedure  when  there  was  treason  without  the 
realm;  that  is,  as  to  the  venue  of  the  trial. 

Now,  our  attention  was  called  by  the  learned  Attorney-General  to  a 
series  of  cases  of  which  I  only  propose  to  refer  to  three,  and  in  truth 
to  rely  only  upon  one.  First  of  all  there  was  the  case  of  Lord  Wentworth, 
Grimston,  and  Chamberlain.  The  indictment  there,  we  were  told  by  the 
learned  Attorney-General,  was  for  an  offence  committed  in  Calais.  Lord 
Wentworth  apparently  was  sent  to  the  House  of  Lords  to  be  tried,  Grim- 
ston  was  acquitted,  and  Chamberlain  was  convicted.  I  find  it  difficult 
to  take  that  case  as  an  authority;  indeed  I  do  not  think  we  can  regard 
it  as  one,  because  it  was  tried  in  the  year  1558,  and  according  to  the 
indictment  it  seems  clear  that  the  offence  was  laid  treating  Calais  as 
within  the  King's  dominions.  Consequently,  in  my  judgment,  that  case 
cited  to  us  by  the  Attorney-General  does  not  help  us.  The  next  case 
he  cited  was  the  Duke  of  Wharton  case,  which  was  tried  in  the  year 
1729.  There,  according  to  the  statement  made  from  investigation  of 
the  indictment  and  the  records,  the  offence  was  of  adhering  to  the  King's 
enemies  in  Spain.  There,  according  to  the  overt  acts  to  which  our 
attention  was  directed,  the  offence  of  adhering  was  committed  in  Spain, 
and  the  aid  and  comfort  were  given  in  Spain.  So  that  the  complete 
offence  of  treason  without  the  realm  was  there  charged.  As  a  result  the 
Duke  of  Wharton  did  not  appear,  and  he  was  outlawed;  but  it  assumes 
again  that  according  to  the  law  of  England  he  had  committed  the  offence. 
The  observation  to  be  made  upon  it  is  that  the  defence  did  not  appear 
to  put  forward  its  view,  and  therefore  it  might  not  have  the  full  authority 
which  would  be  given  to  a  case  in  which  the  argument  was  put  before 
the  Court  on  behalf  of  the  defence. 

K  129 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

The  third  case  was  that  of  William  Cundell,  tried  in  the  year 
1812,  of  which  the  records  are  extant,  and  of  which  there  is  no  report 
except  in  the  4th  volume  of  the  Newgate  Calendar,  page  62.  That  was 
a  case  of  adhering  without  the  realm  to  the  King's  enemies,  and  giving 
them  aid  and  comfort  there.  The  case  was  tried.  The  persons  were 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  and  sentence  was  pronounced. 
According  to  that  it  seems  clear  that  in  1812  there  is  distinct  authority 
for  the  proposition  that  it  is  an  offence  to  adhere  without  the  realm  to 
the  King's  enemies.  It  was  the  case  of  persons  who  were  confined  in 
the  Isle  of  France,  and  who  had  then  forsaken  their  allegiance  to  the 
King  and  taken  it  to  the  French.  I  think,  in  view  of  that  judgment  to 
which  our  attention  has  been  called,  it  cannot  be  said  that  there  is  no 
authority  to  be  found  in  our  books  for  the  proposition  advanced  by  the 
Crown  until  the  authority  of  The  King  v.  Lynch. 

I  do  not  propose  to  go  further  through  the  various  authorities.  I 
have  called  attention  to  the  most  important  of  them.  I  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  offence,  if  proved  in  fact,  has  been  committed  in 
law.  We  are  merely  considering  now  the  case  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  facts  prove  it.  The  argument  of  the  defence  is  put  forward  on 
that  basis,  that  no  offence  is  made  out  in  law.  Of  course,  it  must  not 
for  one  moment  be  thought,  and  is  not  thought  by  those  who  under- 
stand our  procedure,  that  that  in  any  way  admits  the  offence.  It  is 
merely  a  legal  argument.  The  result  of  it  is  that  in  my  judgment 
the  words  "  giving  to  them  aid  and  comfort  "  may  be  read  as  in  a 
parenthesis;  but  I  do  not  exclude  the  application  of  the  words  "  or 
"  elsewhere  "  to  that  parenthesis;  I  think  it  applies  just  as  much  to 
the  parenthesis  as  it  does  to  the  preceding  words.  I  am  of  opinion, 
although  it  is  not  necessary  to  state  it  for  the  purposes  of  this  case,  that 
the  words  "  or  elsewhere  "  govern  both  limbs  of  the  sentence — both 
the  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  and  the  aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's 
enemies,  and  that  it  is  an  offence  to  adhere  within  the  realm  or  with- 
out the  realm  to  the  King's  enemies,  and  it  is  equally  an  offence  to 
adhere  within  the  realm  to  the  King's  enemies  by  giving  them  aid  and 
comfort  without  the  realm. 

For  these  reasons  I  am  of  opinion,  notwithstanding  the  learned  and 
able  arguments  that  have  been  addressed  to  us,  that  the  point  fails  and 
that  the  motion  to  quash  the  indictment  must  be  refused. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORY — I  agree  that  this  objection  fails  whether  it  be 
regarded  as  an  objection  to  the  indictment  that  it  discloses  no  offence 
upon  the  face  of  it  or  whether  it  be  regarded  as  an  objection  that  there 
is  no  evidence  to  go  to  the  jury  of  an  offence  committed  within  the 
meaning  of  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  It  would,  in  my  opinion,  be 
sufficient  in  this  Court  to  say  that  the  point  which  has.  been  argued  so 
strenuously  and  with  so  much  learning  before  us  has  been  already  decided 
by  this  Court  in  the  case  of  The  King  v.  Lynch  ;  but,  having  regard  to  the 
criticisms  which  have  been  passed  upon  that  case,  I  think  it  right  to 
add  my  own  reasons  for  coming  to  the  same  conclusion  as  that  which 
has  been  expressed  by  my  lord  the  Chief  Justice. 

First  of  all,  it  is  not  right  to  say  that  the  point  was  not  in  fact 
130 


Judgment  on  Motion  to   Quash   Indictment. 

decided  in  The  King  v.  Lynch.  While  it  is  true  that  no  formal  judg- 
ment was  pronounced  on  the  objection,  it  will  be  found  by  reference  to 
the  report  of  the  case  in  19  Times  Law  Reports  that  the  Lord  Chief 
Justice  stopped  the  Attorney-General  in  his  reply  to  the  argument  and 
said  that  they  were  satisfied  on  the  point,  and  unless  he  wanted  to  cite 
any  further  authorities,  they  did  not  wish  to  hear  him  further.  That 
was  in  fact  a  decision  that  the  point  taken  was  a  bad  one.  But  further, 
and  beyond  the  fact  to  which  allusion  hae  been  made,  that  the  prisoner 
in  that  case  could  not  have  been  convicted  unless  the  point  was  decided 
against  him,  it  will  also  be  found  in  the  same  report  of  the  summing 
up  of  the  learned  Lord  Chief  Justice  that  he,  towards  the  close  of  his 
summing  up,  used  these  words.  He  reminded  the  jury  "  that  the 
"  charge  against  the  prisoner  was  that  of  aiding  the  King's  enemies; 
' '  and  he  had  already  told  them  that  the  facts  which  had  been  laid  before 
"  them  amounted  to  aiding  the  King's  enemies,  and  that  wherever  it 
"  was  done  this  was  an  offence  in  respect  of  which,  if  proved,  the 
"  prisoner  ought  to  be  found  guilty  upon  this  indictment."  So  that 
there  was  an  express  direction  in  terms  in  that  case  to  the  jury  that 
wherever  the  acts  were  done  of  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies  that  was 
an  offence  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute. 

Now,  it  is,  I  think,  also  clear  that  in  interpreting  this  statute  of 
Edward  III.  the  Court  must  do  it  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  it  has  been 
decided  to  be  an  Act  of  Parliament  declaratory  of  the  common  law.  I 
cannot  doubt  that  before  this  istatute  of  Edward  III.  it  was  treason  in  a 
British  subject  to  join  the  forces  of  an  enemy  abroad,  and  that  if  a 
British  subject  had  joined  the  forces  of  an  enemy  abroad  at  war  with 
this  country,  and  he  afterwards  returned  or  was  brought  back  to  thisi 
country,  he  could  be  tried  here  for  that  offence.  When  one  has  regard 
to  the  nature  of  this  offence  of  high  treason,  I  think  it  is  obvious  that  it 
must  have  been  so.  Foster  in  his  Crown  Law  thus  describes  the  offence 
of  high  treason:  "  High  treason  being  an  offence  committed  against  the 
"  duty  of  allegiance,  it  may  be  proper  to  consider  from  whom  and  to 
"  whom  allegiance  is  due.  With  regard  to  natural-born  subjects  there 
"  can  be  no  doubt.  They  owe  allegiance  to  the  Crown  at  all  times  and 
"  in  all  places.  This  is  what  we  call  natural  allegiance  in  contradistinc- 
11  tion  to  that  which  is  local.  Natural  allegiance  is  founded  in  the 
"  relation  every  man  standeth  in  to  the  Crown,  considered  as  the  head 
"  of  that  (society  whereof  he  is  born  a  member;  and  on  the  peculiar 
f(  privileges  he  deriveth  from  that  relation  which  are,  with  great 
"  propriety,  called  his  birthright.  This  birthright  nothing  but  his 
"  own  demerit  can  deprive  him  of.  It  is  indefeasible  and  perpetual; 
"  and  consequently  the  duty  of  allegiance  which  ariseth  out  of  it,  and  is 
"  inseparably  connected  with  it,  is,  in  consideration  of  law,  likewise 
"  unalienable  and  perpetual." 

In  view  of  that  definition  of  the  offence  of  high  treason,  I  think  it 
cannot  be  doubted,  as  I  have  said,  that  such  an  offence  committed  by  a 
British  subject  abroad  was  triable,  justiciable,  in  this  country  •  and  the 
only  doubts  which  had  arisen  before  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII.  were  as 
expressed  by  Hawkins  in  hi®  Pleas  of  the  Crown  in  the  passage  which 

131 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

my  lord  the  Chief  Justice  lias  already  read;  not  a  doubt  whether  it  was 
triable  here;  not  a  doubt  whether  it  was  an  offence  committed  by  a 
British  subject;  but  a  doubt  only  as  to  the  proper  place  and  the  proper 
manner  in  which  it  should  be  tried.  He  points  out  that  some  have  held 
that  it  ehould  be  tried  in  one  county;  others  have  held  that  it  should  be 
tried  in  another  county ;  others  have  held  that  it  should  be  tried  upon  an 
indictment  laying  the  offence  in  any  county  where  the  King  pleased. 
That,  no  doubt,  had  reference  to  a  special  Commission  issued  by  the  King 
for  the  trial  of  a  particular  treason,  and  which  special  Commission  would, 
in  my  opinion,  get  rid  of  all  difficulty  about  local  venue. 

Now,  that  being  so,  if  this  was  an  offence  triable  in  this  country 
before  the  statute  of  Edward  III.,  that  is  to  say,  if  the  offence  of  treason 
committed  abroad  was  triable  in  this  country  before  the  statute  of  Edward 
III.,  and  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  is  declaratory  only  of  the  common  law, 
it  would  be  a  strange  conclusion  that  the  statute  has  limited  the  offence 
to  treasons  committed  or  to  overt  acts  which  have  been  committed  within 
the  realm.  As  the  Attorney-General  has  pointed  out,  the  offence  of 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  them,  is  an 
offence  which  is  more  likely,  prima  facie  at  all  events,  to  be  committed 
out  of  the  realm  than  within  it,  and  it  would  be  a  strange  enactment  to 
provide  if  the  common  law  was,  as  I  have  said,  that  after  this  date  the 
offence  could  only  be  committed  by  a  person  who  was  within  the  realm 
at  the  time  when  he  committed  it. 

With  reference  to  the  construction  of  the  actual  words,  again  it  would 
be  sufficient,  as  my  lord  has  pointed  out,  to  say  that  the  great  authorities 
have  uniformly  put  upon  these  words  the  construction  which  the  Crown 
invite  us  to  put,  namely,  that  the  statute  does  not  limit  this  kind  of 
treason  to  treason  committed  by  a  subject  within  the  realm.  But  there 
appear  to  be  two  constructions  of  it  which  have  been  adopted,  either  of 
which  will  satisfy  and  answer  this  objection.  It  may  be  that  the  words 
"or  elsewhere"  are  to  be  read  as  applying  to  the  words  "be  adherent 
"  to  the  King's  enemies,"  that  is  to  say,  if  he  be  adherent  to  the  King's 
enemies  in  his  realm  or  elsewhere;  or  it  may  be,  as  Serjeant  Hawkins 
seemed  to  think.  In  book  1,  chapter  17,  of  his  Treatise,  he  says,  "  As  to  the 
"  second  point,  namely,  what  shall  be  said  to  be  an  adherence  to  the  King's 
"  enemies,  this  is  explained  by  the  words  subsequent  '  giving  aid  and 
"  '  comfort  to  them '  "  ;  and  it  may  be  therefore  that  the  proper  con- 
struction of  this  section  is  that  the  words  "  giving  aid  and  comfort  in  the 
"realm  or  elsewhere"  are  an  explanation  or  an  exposition  of  the  kind 
of  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies  which  is  aimed  at  by  the  statute. 
Nobody  questions  that  the  words  "or  elsewhere"  apply  to  the  giving 
of  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemy,  and  it  may  be  therefore  that  the  proper 
construction  is  that  if  a  person  gives  aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's 
enemies  either  in  the  realm  or  elsewhere  he  is  committing  the  offence  of 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  within  the  meaning  of  this  statute.  Which- 
ever view  be  taken,  as  I  have  said,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  all  the 
authorities  agree  that  it  is  not  limited  in  the  manner  in  which  the  learned 
counsel  for  the  prisoner  have  invited  us  to  confine  it. 

It  only  remains  to  consider  in  one  word  the  statute  of  Henry  VIII., 
which  provides  for  the  trial  in  this  country  of  treasons  committed  abroad. 
132 


Judgment  on  Motion  to  Quash   Indictment. 

In  my  view  there  is  nothing  in  this  statute  which  assist®  the  argument 
for  the  prisoner.  The  recital  of  it  is,  "  Forasmuch  as  some  doubts  and 
"  questions  have  been  moved  that  certain  kinds  of  treasons,  misprisions, 
"  and  concealment  of  treasons  done  or  committed  out  of  the  King's  realm 
"cannot  by  the  common  law  be  inquired  of."  In  my  opinion  that 
recital  or  preamble  of  the  statute  rather  assumes  that  there  are  already 
certain  kinds  of  treason  committed  out  of  the  realm  which  may  be  tried 
within  the  realm,  and  the  probability  is  that  it  was  only  for  removing 
doubts  as  to  the  other  kinds  of  treason,  many  of  which  had  been  enacted 
either  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  or  shortly  before.  At  all  events, 
it  makes  it  clear  that  after  that  date  any  treason  committed  out  of  the 
realm  may  be  tried,  as  this  one  is  being  tried,  by  His  Majesty's  judges  in 
the  King's  Bench. 

For  these  reasons  I  agree  that  this  objection  must  be  overruled. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  HORBIDGE — After  the  very  careful  consideration  by  the 
Lord  Chief  Justice  of  the  law  before  the  statute,  of  the  statute,  of  the 
cases  in  which  the  decision  involved  construction  of  the  statute,  and  of  the 
writings  of  learned  authors,  I  do  not  think  I  should  usefully  occupy  the 
time  of  the  Court  by  again  reviewing  those  matters.  All  I  wish  to  say  is 
this.  My  view  is  that  the  true  construction  of  the  statute  is  the  one 
which  is  to  be  found  in  the  opinion  of  the  judges  in  the  case  of  Mulcahy  v. 
The  Queen.  In  the  words  of  Mr.  Justice  Willes,  "  If  a  man  be  adherent 
"  to  the  King' si  enemies  in  this  realm  or  elsewhere,"  and  that  there  ought 
only  to  be  added  to  those  words  the  direction  as  to  the  use  of  the  words 
"or  elsewhere  "  contained  in  the  judgment  of  the  Lord  Chief  Justice.  I 
agree  with  every  word  of  the  judgment,  and  I  also  agree  that  this 
objection  fails. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Mr.  Sullivan,  are  you  in  a  position  to  tell 
us  now  as  to  the  course  you  propose  to  take?  Do  not  do  so  if  it  is 
inconvenient. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  prisoner  desires  to  make  a  statement,  and  then 
I  shall  address  the  jury. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Very  well.  (To  the  jury) — You  must 
understand,  gentlemen,  that  the  statement  which  the  prisoner  wishes  to 
make  to  you  is  not  made  upon  oath,  and  he  cannot  be  cross-examined 
upon  it. 

The  PRISONER — May  I  have  permission  to  read  the  statement  which  I 
desire  to  make? 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Yes. 


Statement  by  the  Prisoner. 

The  PRISONER — My  lords  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  desire  to  say  a 
few  words  only  with  reference  to  some  of  the  statements  made  by  the 
prosecution.  As  to  my  pension  and  the  honour  of  knighthood  conferred 
upon  me  I  will  say  one  word  only.  The  pension  I  had  earned  by  services 
rendered,  and  it  was  assigned  by  law.  The  knighthood  it  was  not  in  my 
power  to  refuse. 

But,  gentlemen,  there  are  especially  four  mis  statements  given  in  the 
evidence  against  me  which  I  wish  to  refute.  First,  I  never  at  any  time 

133 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

advised  Irishmen  to  fight  with  Turks  against  Russians,  nor  to  fight  with 
Germans  on  the  Western  Front.  Secondly,  I  never  asked  an  Irishman  to 
fight  for  Germany.  I  have  always  claimed  that  he  has  no  right  to  fight 
for  any  land  but  Ireland.  Thirdly,  the  horrible  insinuation  that  I  got 
my  own  people's  rations'  reduced  to  starvation  point  because  they  did  not 
join  the  Irish  Brigade  is  an  abominable  falsehood.  The  rations  were 
necessarily  reduced  throughout  Germany  owing  to  the  blockade,  and  they 
were  reduced  for  Irish  prisoners  at  exactly  the  same  time  and  to  the  same 
extent  as  for  the  German  soldiers  and  the  entire  population  of  Germany. 
The  other  suggestion  that  men  were  sent  to  punishment  camps  at  my 
instance  for  not  joining  the  Irish  Brigade  is  one  that  I  need  hardly  pause 
to  refute.  It  is  devoid  of  all  foundation.  Fourthly,  there  is  a  widespread 
imputation  of  German  gold.  I  owe  it  to  those  in  Ireland  who  are  assailed 
with  me  on  this  very  ground  to  nail  the  lie  once  and  for  all.  It  was 
published  by  newspapers  in  America,  and  originally,  I  think,  in  this 
country;  and  I  cabled  to  America  and  instructed  my  American  lawyer, 
Mr.  Councillor  Doyle,  to  proceed  against  those  newspapers  for  libel.  Those 
who  know  me  know  the  incredibility  of  this  malicious  invention,  for  they 
know  from  all  my  past  record  that  I  have  never  sold  myself  to  any  man 
or  to  any  Government,  and  have  never  allowed  any  Government  to  use  me. 
From  the  first  moment  I  landed  on  the  Continent  until  I  came  home  again 
to  Ireland  I  never  asked  for  nor  accepted  a  single  penny  of  foreign  money, 
neither  for  myself  nor  for  any  Irish  cause  nor  for  any  purpose  whatsoever, 
but  only  the  money  of  Irishmen.  I  refute  so  obvious  a  slander,  because 
it  was  so  often  made  until  I  came  back.  Money  was  offered  to  me  in 
Germany  more  than  once,  and  offered  liberally  and  unconditionally,  but 
I  rejected  every  suggestion  of  the  kind,  and  I  left  Germany  a  poorer  man 
than  I  entered  it.  Money  I  could  always  obtain  from  my  own  countrymen, 
and  I  am  not  ashamed  here  to  acknowledge  the  debt  of  gratitude  I  owe  to 
many  Irish  friends  and  sympathisers  who  did  freely  and  gladly  help  me 
when  I  was  on  the  Continent;  and  I  take  the  opportunity  here  of  stating 
how  deeply  I  have  been  touched  by  the  generosity  and  loyalty  of  those 
English  friends  of  mine  who  have  given  me  proof  of  their  abiding  friendship 
during  these  last  dark  weeks-  of  strain  and  trial. 

I  trust,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  have  made  that  statement  clearly 
and  emphatically  enough  for  all  men,  even  my  most  bitter  enemies,  to 
comprehend  that  a  man  who,  in  the  newspapers  is  said  to  be  just  another 
Irish  traitor,  may  be  a  gentleman. 

There  is  another  matter  I  wish  to  touch  upon.  The  Attorney- General 
of  England  thought  it  consistent  with  tradition  of  which  he  is  the  public 
representative  to  make  a  veiled  allusion  in  his  opening  address  to  the 
rising  in  Ireland,  of  which  he  has  brought  forward  no  evidence  in  this  case 
from  first  to  last,  and  to  which,  therefore,  you  and  I,  gentlemen,  as  laymen, 
would  have  supposed  that  he  would  have  scrupulously  refrained  from 
referring  to.  Since  the  rising  has  been  mentioned,  however,  I  must  state 
categorically  that  the  rebellion  was  not  made  in  Germany,  and  that  not  one 
penny  of  German  gold  went  to  finance  it. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  have  touched  on  these  personal  matters  alone 
because,  intended  as  they  were  to  reflect  on  my  honour,  they  were 
calculated  to  tarnish  the  cause  that  I  hold  dear.  That  is  all,  my  lords. 

134 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 


Serjeant  Sullivan's  Speech  for  the  Prisoner. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — If  your  lordships  please,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  is 
indeed  a  matter  of  congratulation  that  such  a  trial  as  this  at  such  a  time 
is  taking  place  here  in  the  capital  city  of  your  nation  in  open  Court  accord- 
ing to  the  ordinary  process  of  law  regulating  the  lives  of  the  civil  subjects 
of  His  Majesty.  That  is  a  great  tribute  to  the  confidence  and  courage  of 
your  race,  but  its  lesson  would  be  worse  than  lost  if  in  the  trial  your 
verdict  should  be  to  the  smallest  degree  coloured  by  passion,  prejudice,  or 
preconception  arising  from  matters  outside  this  Court.  The  trial  is  a 
trial  for  the  life  of  a  man.  It  is  more  than  that.  You  represent  your 
country.  The  old  form  of  giving  in  charge,  prevalent  elsewhere  in  His 
Majesty's  dominions,  proclaimed  that  the  prisoner  threw  himself  upon  his 
God  and  upon  his  country  for  his  deliverance.  The  prisoner  is  not  a 
countryman  of  yours.  He  is  a  stranger  within  your  gates.  He  comes 
from  another  country  where  people,  though  they  use  the  same  words, 
perhaps,  speak  differently;  they  think  differently;  they  act  differently. 
It  is  your  duty  to  demonstrate  in  the  face  of  the  world,  whose  attention 
is  challenged,  and  most  properly  challenged,  by  this  brave  proceeding 
of  open  trial  in  such  a  case,  that  old  virtue  for  which  you  have  achieved 
a  reputation  the  world  over,  the  virtue  of  the  accordance  of  fair  play 
between  man  and  man.  That  you  will  endeavour  to  do  so,  I  know  well, 
for  I  am  deeply  and  sincerely  and  gratefully  cognisant  from  my  experience 
in  this  Court  of  the  kind  of  spirit  of  fair  play  that  is  accorded  to  any 
stranger  who  ventures  within  your  precincts. 

But,  gentlemen,  your  task  is  not  an  easy  one.  We  do  not  in  a 
moment  throw  off  the  atmosphere  in  which  we  have  always  lived,  and 
we  cannot  in  a  day  shake  from  our  minds  that  which  has  lingered  there 
and  has  become  almost  a  form  of  faith  by  being  pondered  on  and  thought 
of  from  day  to  day.  Your  task  is  a  difficult  one  and  a  serious  one.  I 
can  well  judge  of  the  burden  that  is  upon  you  from  the  effect  upon 
myself,  who  had  a  less  burdensome  task  than  you,  for  yours  is  the  last 
word,  of  my  effort  to  discharge  my  duty  in  the  conduct  of  these  pro- 
ceedings. 

Gentlemen,  I  propose  at  the  outset  to  call  your  attention  to  and 
try  and  make  plain  to  you  what  is  the  matter  that  is  charged  against  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar.  You  are  not  asked  to  pronounce  any  opinion  of 
approbation  or  reprobation  of  any  general  conduct  of  the  man  who  stands 
before  you.  The  charge  against  him  may  be  stated  in  a  few  words, 
that  whatever  you  think  of  his  general  conduct,  whatever  you  think  of  his 
views -of  policy  or  of  public  affairs,  or  of  the  propriety  of  introducing 
one  view  of  public  affairs  rather  than  another  as  the  uppermost  in  his 
mind  in  regulating  his  actions,  in  the  end  your  verdict  must  come  back 
to  this — Did  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  adhere  to  the  King's  enemies  in 
Germany  1 

135 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Mr.  Sullivan 

You  have  heard  the  indictment  read  out  to  you,  but  perhaps  to  your 
mind  the  indictment  has  conveyed  little.  In  a  few  words  the  charge  is 
this,  that  Sir  Roger  Casement  aided  the  military  power  of  Germany  in 
the  war  waged  against  His  Majesty  the  King.  That,  I  think,  may  fairly 
epitomise  the  charge.  The  indictment  sets  out  what  are  called  overt 
acts,  but  are  merely  instances  of  evidence  with  regard  to  the  main  charge, 
for  the  indictment  is  supposed  to  give  warning  to  the  man  who  is  arraigned 
upon  it.  What  is  the  nature  of  the  evidence  and  what  are  the  facts  sought 
to  be  proved  from  which  the  jury  is  to  be  asked  to  draw  the  inference  that 
he  aided  the  military  power  of  Germany  in  this  war  against  the  Crown? 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  acts  that  are  alleged  an  the  indictment  ure 
six  in  number.  I  need  not  read  to  you  in  detail  what  they  amount 
to,  for  again  I  can  shortly  and  fairly  state  to  you  in  plain  language  what 
they  mean.  Most  of  them  deal  with  the  allegation  that  while  in  Ger- 
many Sir  Roger  Casement  recruited  a  number  of  Irishmen,  alleged  in 
the  evidence  to  be  about  fifty  or  fifty-two,  to  aid  Germany  in  the  war 
against  the  Empire.  That  is  the  real  substance  of  the  charge  against 
him,  and  I  want  you  clearly  to  understand  what  is  the  meaning  of  the 
charge  and  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  evidence  of  the  charge  as  given  in 
the  overt  acts. 

It  would  be  wasting  time  if  I  were  to  pass  on  to  a  consideration  of  the 
case  before  you  had  clearly  before  you  the  end  to  which  my  observations 
are  addressed,  and  if  I  appear  to  labour  them  you  must  pardon  me.  I 
shall  necessarily  occupy  your  time  far  longer  than  I  would  wish;  you 
must  excuse  me  for  that.  I  shall  say  much  perhaps  that  will  strike  a 
jarring  note  in  your  minds.  I  only  ask  you  to  believe  that  I  am  trying 
to  do  my  duty.  I  appreciate  how  difficult  it  is  that  you  should  be  put 
into  a  position — I  doubt  my  power  to  do  it — to  understand  what  goes  on 
in  the  mind  of  an  Irishman.  I  am  conscious  of  a  strange  atmosphere 
as  I  stand  here.  You  have  to  try  the  man  for  his  intentions ;  you  have 
to  judge  of  his  motives;  and  there  is  no  task  so  difficult  as  judging  of 
the  motives  or  intentions  of  a  man  who  is  not  of  your  race  and  is  not  one 
of  yourselves.  Now,  the  intention  of  the  prisoner  is  the  whole  substance 
of  the  offence  of  treason.  It  is  his  view  of  his  own  acts  which  must  justify 
him  or  condemn  him.  Unless  he  intends  treachery  to  the  King,  the  fact 
that  others  may  use  with  advantage  that  which  he  does,  against  his  inten- 
tion, perhaps  to  the  public  detriment  of  the  realm,  does  not  make  him 
guilty  of  treason.  The  essence  of  treason  is  the  evil  mind  that  plans  it. 

Therefore,  when  you  come  to  consider  what  is  alleged  against  Sir 
Roger  Casement  here,  you  will  always  have  to  weigh  it  so  far  as  it  is 
humanly  possible  for  you  to  do  so,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  with 
regard  to  each  act,  what  did  Sir  Roger  Casement  do  that  for?  What  was 
in  his  mind?  What  was  his  motive?  And  I  do  not  ask  you  to  reject, 
because  I  think  it  is  most  unfair  that  you  should  ever  consider  as  bearing 
on  that,  what  might  be  in  the  mind  of  any  other  human  being,  or  that 
you  should  digress  into  the  interminable  inquiry  what  might  be  the 
ultimate  result  of  any  human  act,  and  to  whom  might  ultimate  benefit  or 
ultimate  loss  occur.  There  will  be  very  little  dispute  about  what  are  the 
true  facts  of  the  case.  I  hardly  believe  there  will  be  any,  because  I  am 
136 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 

Mr.  Sullivan 

happy  to  say  that  my  duty  compels  me  to  comment  upon  one  part  of  the 
evidence  of  one  witness  alone  in  the  address  which  I  have  to  present 
before  you. 

Now,  gentlemen,  what  is  proved  that  Sir  Roger  Casement  has  done? 
He  went  to  the  camp  at  Limburg.  He  did.  He  appealed  to  Irishmen  to 
join  an  Irish  Brigade.  He  did.  Did  any  human  being  ever  hear  him  ask 
an  Irishman  to  fight  for  Germany?  Not  one.  Subject  to  a  comment  that 
I  shall  have  to  make  upon  a  new  piece  of  evidence,  introduced,  I  hope,  as 
much  to  the  surprise  of  the  Crown  as  to  myself,  for  I  would  in  fair  play 
have  been  entitled  to  notice  of  it  if  the  Crown  could  have  given  me  notice 
— subject  to  that,  no  human  being,  although  you  have  evidence  of  four 
or  five  or  six  speeches  of  Sir  Roger  Casement  in  the  Limburg  camp,  in 
no  one  of  these  pronouncements  did  he  ever  ask  that  an  Irishman  should 
fight  for  Germany.  He  asked  that  they  should  join  an  Irish  Brigade.  I 
will  read  to  you  in  detail  the  evidence  of  each  witness  that  has  spoken 
about  it,  but  I  ask  you  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  in  the  main  the 
fact  is  this :  he  asked  that  they  should  join  an  Irish  Brigade,  that  when 
the  war  was  over  or  when  the  eeas  were  clear — and  until  the  war  was 
over,  the  seas,  you.  know,  would  never  be  clear — either  when  the  war 
was  over  or  the  iseas  were  clear — and  he  spoke  in  a  context  of  the  war 
being  over  soon — the  men  who  enlisted  with  him  would  be  landed  in 
Ireland  to  fight  for  Ireland.  To  fight  for  Ireland. 

I  will  deal  with  the  allusion  to  the  enemy  in  Ireland  afterwards, 
and  I  hope,  if  you  accept  the  view  of  the  evidence  that  I  put  forward 
before  you,  corroborated  by  a  number  of  witnesses,  speaking  of  different 
speeches,  speaking  of  different  occasions,  yet,  strange  to  say,  almost  all 
reproducing  almost  in  exact  terms  the  eame  adjuration:  "If  you  are 
"  Irishmen,  join  the  Irish  Brigade;  when  the  war  is  over  I  will  land  you  in 
"Ireland,  and  there  you  may  serve  your  country,  and  you  may  ha.ve  to 
"  fight  for  it  "  :  if  you  take  that  view,  later  in  my  address  to  you  I  hope  to 
convince  you  that  that  is  not  treason.  If  the  object  was  to  have  in  Ireland 
at  the  close  of  the  war  men  in  arms  and  skilled  in  arms  for  the  purpose 
of  protecting  what  were  the  rights  of  the  people  of  Ireland  against  unlawful 
tyranny,  no  matter  in  whose  name  it  was  sought  to  be  exercised,  that  is 
not  treason.  It  may  be  some  offence  in  Ireland.  You  know  nothing  of 
that.  When  I  come  to  deal  with  the  position  of  affairs  there  I  will  have 
to  point  out  to  you  that  in  this  Court  nothing  is  known  of  what  the  law 
of  Ireland  on  such  a  subject  may  be.  You  cannot  assume  that  it  would 
be  right  or  wrong  unless  the  act  is  done  within  this  indictment,  an  act 
done  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  Germany  in  this  war  to  carry  on  her  war- 
fare against  His  Majesty's  Empire. 

Now,  gentlemen,  am  I  right  in  the  version  I  have  presented  to  you  of 
the  terms  upon  which  Sir  Roger  Casement  sought  to  enlist  the  service 
of  the  Irishmen  in  Limburg?  They  were  in  truth  soldiers.  That  makes 
no  difference  in  the  offence  save  in  making  it  somewhat  easier  for  the 
Crown  to  prove  that  they  were  subjects  of  His  Majesty,  so  far  as  that 
may  assist  them.  But  if  he  recruited  anywhere  people  of  any  nationality, 
of  any  occupation,  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  Germany  in  this  war  against 
the  Empire,  that  is  the  offence  with  which  he  is  charged.  Their  individu- 

137 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Mr.  Sullivan 

ality  matters  nothing,  their  situation  matters  nothing,  save  in  so  far  as  it 
gives  you  an  insight  into  his  motives,  save  in  so  far  as  it  may  assist  you 
to  determine  what  was  his  intention  in  seeking  to  enlist  the  services  of 
these  men.  Observe,  the  charge  is  to  aid  Germany  in  the  war.  Observe, 
for  I  state  at  the  outset — I  will  have  to  come  back  to  it  again — not  one 
atom  of  assistance  in  the  war  did  Germany  ever  get  from  any  human  being 
in  consequence  of  Sir  Roger  Casement's  intervention.  No  man  ever  fired 
a  shot  for  her.  Of  the  fifty-two  men  who  were  recruited  not  one  ever 
appeared  in  the  German  ranks  or  in  the  command  of  any  German  officer. 
No  man  has  been  eeen  in  the  service  of  Germany  as  a  result  of  Sir  Roger 
Casement's  action — not  one — and  I  shall  have  to  comment  on  that  when 
I  come  to  deal  with  another  part  of  the  evidence.  What  aid  or  assistance 
is  he  alleged  to  have  given?  We  have  the  particulars.  They  amount 
to  this,  that  he  recruited  practically  for  the  German  Army  or  for  an  army 
to  be  used  by  Germany  for  German  purposes  directed  against  the  Empire 
of  His  Majesty.  There  is  no  mention  of  them.  You  find  them  nowhere. 

So  far  from  being  of  service  to  Germany,  Germany,  whatever  good  she 
may  have  expected  to  get  out  of  the  episode,  has  at  all  events  heretofore- 
been  solely  at  a  loss  by  treating  these  men  somewhat  better  than  she 
treated  prisoners  of  war  and  having  them  living  in  idleness  at  greater 
expense  to  Germany  than  other  foreigners  that  she  had  within  her  camps. 
You  will  ask  yourselves  therefore  when  it  comes  to  that  what  is  the 
military  aid  that  Sir  Roger  Casement  gave  them. 

But,  gentlemen,  before  I  come  to  deal  with  that  in  detail  I  will  pass 
to  the  evidence  of  what  Sir  Roger  Casement  said  he  wanted  the  Irish 
Brigade  for.  The  first  witness  to  that  is,  I  think,  Cronin.  In  answer  to 
the  Lord  Chief  Justice  he  says1 — 

He  said  that  he  was  going  to  form  an  Irish  Brigade,  and  he  said,  "Why  live 
"any  longer  in  hunger  and  misery  in  this  camp  when  you  can  better  yourselves  by 
"joining  the  Irish  Brigade  which  I  am  going  to  form;  you  will  be  sent  to  Berlin 
"as  the  guests  of  the  German  Government." 

Examination  continued — Did  he  say  what  this  Irish  Brigade  was  to  do  ? — He 
said  in  the  event  of  Germany  winning  a  sea  battle  he  would  land  them  in  Ireland, 
and  would  equip  them. 

What  were  they  to  do  in  Ireland? — Free  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  who  they  were  to  fight  against? — Against  England. 

Did  he  say  what  would  happen  to  them  if  Germany  did  not  win?— They  would 
be  sent  to  America;  they  would  get  £10  or  £20  pocket  money  and  a  free  passage. 
I  have  told  the  jury  now  what  I  remember  of  the  speech  he  made  on  the  first 
occasion  when  I  saw  him.  He  was  asked  who  he  was,  and  he  said  that  he  was 
Sir  Roger  Casement,  the  Organiser  of  the  Irish  National  Volunteer  movement. 

That  is  Oonin's  description.       Then  he  deals  with  the  matter  again2 — 

Did  he  speak  of  raising  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Limburg  in  connection  with  the 
Irish  Volunteers  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  that  they  would  fight  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

That  they  were  to  fight  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

And  for  Ireland? — Yes. 

And  for  nobody  else? — For  nobody  else,  only  for  Ireland. 

That  is  Cronin's  evidence  of  what  he  said.  Is  that  confirmed  by  the 
others?  Remember,  when  you  have  different  speeches  there  will  be  a 
little  variation  of  a  phrase  or  a  word,  or  a  sentence  here  and  there,  but 

l¥.  17.        2P.  20. 
138 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 


MP.  Sullivan 


I  think  you  will  find  that  that  evidence  runs  steadily  confirmed  by  each 
succeeding  witness,  and  I  ask  you  to  accept  that  evidence  as  being  the 
truth.  The  next  witness  dealing  with  the  matter  is  the  witness  O'Brien1 — 

I  heard  him  say,  "Now  is  the  time  for  Irishmen  to  fight  against  England; 
"now  is  their  opportunity  for  doing  so;  join  the  Irish  Brigade."  He  said  he  came 
to  form  an  Irish  Brigade,  and  he  wanted  all  Irishmen  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade 
and  become  guests  of  the  German  army.  He  said  that  if  they  were  successful 
in  winning  the  war  they  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade,  along  with  the  German 
army,  in  Ireland,  and  they  would  fight  against  England  there.  If  Germany  did 
not  win  the  war,  then  they  would  be  sent  by  the  German  Government  to  America, 
with  a  guarantee  of  £5  and  a  situation. 

Then  in  cross-examination2 — 

You  only  heard  a  small  part  of  his  speech? — Yes. 

But  in  what  you  did  hear  did  he  speak  of  the  Irish  Brigade  fighting  in 
Ireland  ?— Yes. 

Did  he  say  the  Irish  Brigade  would  be  used  in  Ireland  only? — In  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  they  were  to  be  transferred  to  Ireland  when  Germany  had  won 
the  war? — Yes. 

And  if  Germany  failed  to  win  the  war  they  should  go  to  America? — To 
America,  yes. 

The  next  witness  who  deals  with  it  is  Robinson,  who  says  in  answer 
to  the  Lord  Chief  Justice3 — 

He  said  he  was  very  glad  to  see  so  many  Irishmen  here,  that  now  was  our 
time  to  fight  for  Ireland  and  strike  a  blow,  and  he  hoped  we  would  all  join  the 
Irish  Brigade. 

Examination  continued — Did  he  say  with  whom  the  Irish  Brigade  were  going 
to  fight? — Fight  against  England.  He  said  that  if  Germany  had  a  victory  on  the 
sea  they  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Ireland ;  but  if  Germany  did  not  win  at 
sea  then  we  were  all  to  go  to  America. 

Then  in  cross-examination4 — 

Can  you  remember  all  he  said? — No. 

Or  do  you  only  remember  bits? — A  few  words  or  so. 

He  wanted  you  to  join  an  Irish  Brigade  ? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  that  the  Irish  Brigade  was  to  fight  for  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  it  was  to  fight  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

And  did  he  address  you?  Did  he  say  it  was  to  go  to  Ireland  when  the 
Germans  had  won  the  war? — No;  he  said  if  Germany  had  a  victory  on  sea. 

Did  he  speak  about  Germany  winning  the  war? — Yes. 

What  did  he  say  about  Germany  winning  the  war? — He  always  said  that 
Germany  would  win,  but  we  contradicted  him  and  said  they  would  not. 

The  next  witness  dealing  with,  it  is  Michael  O'Connor.5  I  cannot  find 
in  the  evidence  of  William  Egan,  who  was  examined,  any  particulars  of 
the  statement  of  Sir  Roger  Casement  bearing  on  this  question. 

I  remember  seeing  Sir  Roger  Casement  at  Limburg  about  the  end  of  December, 
1914.  I  heard  him  addressing  some  men.  He  said,  "Now  is  the  time  for  to  fight 
"or  strike  a  blow  for  Ireland"  and  that  England  was  nearly  beaten.  I  should 
think  there  were  about  70  men  listening  to  him. 

Then  in  crossi-examination6 — 

Did  you  remain  on  the  outskirts  of  the  crowd  only  a  few  minutes? — Yes. 
You  stayed  there  as  long  as  there  was  anything  going  on  I  suppose? — No. 
Did  you  go  away  after  a  few  minutes? — Yes. 

You  heard  him  say  that  England  was  nearly  beaten.  Did  you  hear  him 
suggest  the  war  was  nearly  over  then? — No,  I  did  not. 

England  was  nearly  beaten?— He  could  have  said  it,  but  I  did  not  know. 

1  P.  23. 2  P.  24. 3  P.  26.      4  P.  27.      5  P.  32.      6  P.  33. 

139 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


If  England  was  nearly  beaten,  was  not  it  in  the  context  that  the  war  was 
nearly  over? — It  might  have  been. 

Then,  whatever  he  was  talking  about,  he  spoke  of  it  in  the  context  that  the 
war,  at  all  events,  was  nearly  over? — Yes. 

Do  you  assent  to  that? — I  assent  to  that. 

The  war  being  nearly  over,  he  was  recruiting  an  Irish  Brigade? — Yes. 

The  next  witness  is  Michael  Moore1 — 

Sir  Roger  Casement  asked  those  men  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade,  I  being  among 
the  men,  and  he  said  any  man  that  would  join  the  Irish  Brigade  he  would  give  him 
uniform,  better  food  and  better  housing.  He  also  said  in  case  of  the  Germans 
losing  the  war  he  would  send  those  men  to  America,  give  them  a  free  passage  and 
£10  or  £20  pocket  money,  and  guarantee  employment  in  America.  The  Irish 
Brigade  was  to  be  sent  from  Limburg  to  a  camp  outside  Berlin  ;  he  said  they  were 
to  be  guests  of  the  German  Government.  He  also  said  the  first  German  victory  on 
the  water  he  would  land  the  Brigade  in  Ireland.  He  said  what  kind  of  victory ; 
naval  victory.  The  Irish  Brigade  were  to  be  landed  in  Ireland.  I  expect  they 
were  to  be  landed  in  Ireland  from  German  vessels.  I  did  not  hear  him  say  how 
the  Irish  Brigade  were  going  to  get  to  Ireland,  but  he  said  he  would  land  them 
in  Ireland. 

Then  in  cross-examination2 — 

Apparently,  Sir  Roger  Casement  discussed  what  was  to  happen  to  the  Irish 
Brigade  if  Germany  lost  the  war,  did  not  he? — Yes. 

In  that  event  the  Irish  Brigade  would  go  to  America? — Yes. 

If  Germany  lost  the  war.  I  suggest  to  you  that  he  said  that  he  would  land  them 
in  Ireland  if  Germany  won  the  war? — If  there  was  a  sea  battle,  and  if  Germany 
came  out  victorious  in  the  first  sea  battle  he  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Ireland. 

Did  he  speak  of  the  Irish  Volunteer  movement? — Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Or  did  he  speak  of  the  Home  Rule  movement  in  Ireland  or  getting  Home  Rule 
for  Ireland? — I  have  never  heard  him. 

Was  there  no  reference  to  Home  Rule  in  the  event  of  Germany  winning  the 
war ;  was  there  no  reference  to  Home  Rule  ? — There  was  one,  that  Germany  would 
give  Ireland  Home  Rule. 

If  she  won  the  war? — If  she  won  the  war. 

But  do  you  tell  me  that  there  was  no  reference  to  Home  Rule  to  be  won  by 
the  Irish  Brigade  ?— No. 

Are  you  sure  of  that? — I  have  never  heard  him  say  it. 

The  next  piece  of  evidence  on  the  matter  that  I  intend  to  read — I  am 
going  back  to  another  part  of  his  evidence  afterwards  for  the  purpose  of 
comment — is  the  evidence  of  John  Neill3 — 

You  heard  him  say  he  was  the  organiser  of  the  Irish  Volunteers,  did  not  you  ? — Yes. 

That  he  was  raising  an  Irish  Brigade? — Yes. 

Was  it  in  connection  with  the  Irish  Volunteers? — Yes. 

Did  you  hear  him  say  that  it  had  been  subscribed  for  by  Irish  Americans  in 
America  ? — Yes. 

And  that  they  were  to  fight  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

To  win  Home  Rule?— Yes. 

Did  he  say  fight  in  Ireland  only? — At  that  time  only  to  fight  in  Ireland. 

That  was  the  basis  upon  which  they  were  being  recruited? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  that  the  war  was  nearly  over? — No,  he  never  mentioned  anything 
about  the  war  being  nearly  over. 

Did  he  speak  of  what  might  happen  when  the  war  was  over? — Yes. 

When  the  war  was  over,  if  Germany  won,  did  he  say  that  the  Irish  Brigade 
could  easily  be  landed  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say,  if  Germany  lost  the  war,  on  the  other  hand,  they  should  go  to 
America  ? — Yes. 

So  if  Germany  won,  they  were  to  go  to  Ireland? — Yes. 

And  if  they  lost,  they  were  to  go  to  America? — Yes. 

Was  there  any  mention  of  helping  them  in  America,  whether  they  could  get  any 
money  to  help  them  along  in  America  ? — Yes. 

1  P.  33.        2  P.  34.        3  P.  42. 
140 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 

Mr,  Sullivan 

How  much  ?— From  £10  to  £20. 
If  they  landed  in  America? — Yes. 

Was  that  speech  made  more  than  once  in  your  presence? — Only  once  in  my 
presence. 

I  will  have  to  deal  with  some  other  matters  in  that  witness's  testi- 
mony, but  I  postpone  that  for  the  moment  in  order  to  read  another 
overwhelming  piece  of  evidence,  namely,  the  circular  which  has  been 
admitted  in  evidence  against  the  prisoner1 — 

Irishmen,  here  is  a  chance  for  you  to  fight  for  Ireland.  You  have  fought  for 
England,  your  country's  hereditary  enemy.  You  have  fought  for  Belgium  in 
England's  interest,  though  it  was  no  more  to  you  than  the  Fiji  Islands.  Are  you 
willing  to  fight  for  your  own  country  with  a  view  to  securing  the  national  freedom 
of  Ireland?  With  the  moral  and  material  assistance  of  the  German  Government, 
an  Irish  Brigade  is  being  formed.  The  object  of  the  Irish  Brigade  shall  be  to 
fight  solely  the  cause  of  Ireland,  and  under  no  circumstances  shall  it  be  directed  to 
any  German  end.  The  Irish  Brigade  shall  be  formed,  and  shall  fight  under  the 
Irish  flag  alone  ;  the  men  shall  wear  a  special  distinctively  Irish  uniform  and  have 
Irish  officers.  The  Irish  Brigade  shall  be  clothed,  fed,  and  efficiently  equipped  with 
arms  and  ammunition  by  the  German  Government.  It  will  be  stationed  near 
Berlin  and  be  treated  as  guests  of  the  German  Government.  At  the  end  of  the 
war  the  German  Government  undertakes  to  send  each  member  of  the  brigade  who 
may  so  desire  it  to  the  United  States  of  America  with  necessary  means  to  land. 
The  Irishmen  in  America  are  collecting  money  for  the  brigade.  Those  men  who 
do  not  join  the  Irish  Brigade  will  be  removed  from  Limburg  and  distributed  among 
other  camps.  If  interested,  see  your  company  commanders.  Join  the  Irish  Brigade 
and  win  Ireland's  independence!  Remember  Bachelor's  Walk!  God  save  Ireland! 

Now  there,  gentlemen,  I  pause  for  a  moment.  There  is  an  enormous 
mass  of  testimony  of  different  men  speaking  to  different  speeches,  and 
many  of  them  at  different  times,  and  a  most  extraordinary  thing  about 
it  is,  as  far  a,s  I  have  read,  Sir  Roger  Casement's  speeches  were  obviously 
all  of  them  on  the  same  line,  that  the  Irish  Brigade  was  being  formed, 
and  would  remain  at  Berlin  under  Irish  officers  in  Irish  uniform,  the 
guests  and  not  the  servants  of  Germany.  When  the  war  was  over,  if 
Germany  won  they  were  to  be  landed  in  Ireland.  Under  no  circum- 
stances were  they  to  be  asked  to  fight  for  any  country  except  their  own. 
They  were  to  be  landed  in  Ireland,  and  in  Ireland  alone  was  the  Irish 
Brigade  to  be  used  if  their  use  became  necessary.  All  are  agreed  on  that, 
every  witness  that  I  have  read.  They  cannot  agree  as  to  phrases,  dates, 
and  matters  of  that  kind;  but  there  is  a  most  extraordinary  cohesion  of 
separate  stories  told  by  different  men  that  the  Irish  Brigade  was  being 
recruited  on  a  solemn  undertaking,  and  that  they  were  appealed  to  as 
Irishmen  to  enter  into  the  service  of  their  own  country,  they  were  never 
to  be  the  servants  of  any  other  nation,  they  were  not  to  be  the  servants 
of  Germany,  and  they  were  under  no  circumstances  to  be  used  for  any 
German  end.  You  will  bear  that  in  mind,  because,  as  I  told  you  before, 
you  will  see  how  you  will  have  to  deal  with  that  as  showing  what  was  in 
Sir  Roger  Casement's  mind.  Oh,  says  the  Attorney-General,  the  German 
Government  were  interested  in  his  succeeding.  What  cared  he?  He 
was  not  a  German.  It  was  nothing  to  him  what  were  the  calculations  of 
any  German  as  to  what  would  be  the  result  of  anything  he  did.  It  is 
relevant  to  inquire  what  might  be  the  result,  but  only  relevant  to  inquire 
that  in  order  to  ascertain  what  was  truly  in  his  mind,  because  if  what 

1  See  Appendix,  Exhibit  4. 

141 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Mr.  Sullivan 

he  stated  again  and  again  with  variations  to  every  man  who  was  called 
as  a  witness  about  his  speeches,  if  that  represented  truly  what  was  in 
the  man's  mind,  I  will  show  you,  I  confidently  hope,  that  that  represented 
no  form  of  treason.  I  hope  to  justify  it;  if  you  accept  that  view,  I  hope 
to  justify  every  word  he  said  and  every  act  he  did. 

As  against  that  mass  of  testimony  there  is  only  the  evidence,  or  a 
portion  of  the  evidence,  of  the  witness,  John  Neill.  I  will  read  it  to  you 
again.  I  say  that  I  hope  and  believe  that  it  was  as  much  a  surprise  to 
the  Crown  as  to  anybody  else;. it  introduces  a  note  that  absolutely  contra- 
dicts everything  that  was  said  by  every  other  witness ;  more  than  that,  it 
introduces  a  matter  which  under  his  own  hand  is  contradicted  by  Neill 
himself,  and  here  and  here  alone  is  the  smallest  suggestion  upon  which 
ultimately  I  suggest  to  you  the  Crown  case  may  hinge,  if  they  wish  to 
rely  upon  such  testimony.  Here  and  here  alone,  I  will  submit  to  you  at 
the  close  of  my  address,  is  the  only  real  evidence,  if  real  evidence  such 
can  be  called,  of  any  proposal  ever  made  to  any  human  being  in  the  camp 
at  Limburg  to  go  and  assist  the  German  war  in  any  shape  or  form1 — 

He  wanted  to  see  50  names  in  this  book  [that  is  to  join  the  brigade].  He  also 
said  the  German  Government  would  equip  the  brigade  with  arms  and  ammunition 
and  uniforms.  He  also  mentioned  something  about  pay  ;  he  said  the  Irish  Brigade 
would  get  something  about  from  £10  to  £20. 

All  the  witnesses  are  agreed  when  the  war  was  over,  if  the  resoilt  was  the 
Germans  were  beaten,  the  members  of  the  brigade  were  to  get  £10  to  .£20 
if  they  wished  to  go  to  America — 

He  did  not  say  where  they  would  get  that  from.  He  also  told  the  Irishmen  on 
that  Sunday  that  they  were  all  to  join  this  brigade,  and  that  if  Germany  ever  gained 
a  naval  victory  they  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Ireland,  and  to  strike  a  blow 
for  old  Ireland  once  again  and  to  gain  Home  Rule.  He  also  said  how  the  Germans 
were  very  much  like  the  Irish  and  the  Irish  very  much  like  the  Germans. 
Personally  I  did  not  believe  that. 

So  far  he  has  confirmed,  in  the  main,  everything  that  has  been  said  by 
other  witnesses,  and  in  a,  later  part  of  his  evidence  I  have  already  read, 
the  evidence  of  this  same  man,  he  has  confirmed  in  detail  everything  that 
was  said  by  every  other  witness.  He  comes  back  on  this  occasion2 — 

He  told  the  Irishmen  then,  when  he  came  back,  that  he  was  very  disappointed 
to  see  that  there  were  no  names  entered  in  his  book  for  this  Irish  Brigade,  and  he 
also  wanted  to  know  what  were  the  Irishmen  thinking  of  if  they  said  they  would 
not  go  and  fight  for  their  country  now  at  this  time,  and  that  England  was  com- 
pletely beat,  and  that  there  was  no  danger  of  their  not  being  landed  in  Ireland,  and 
that  he  was  the  head  man  over  the  Irish  Volunteers  in  Ireland,  and  that  he  was 
very  proud  to  see  how  smart  looking  they  looked,  and  he  also  hoped  to  see  the 
Irish  Brigade  would  soon  be  formed,  and  to  go  and  fight  for  Ireland. 

So  far  a  little  more  corroborative  detail,  perhaps,  but  no  divergence 
from  the  main  story  told  by  all  the  other  witnesses  and  by  himself.  But  then 
there  comes  a.  matter  of  surprise  and  a  note  that  we  have  not  heard 
before3 — 

He  came  back  in  about  a  month  after,  and  a  clergyman,  Father  Nicholson,  came 
there  next.  When  Casement  came  back  he  just  told  these  people  that  joined  the 
Irish  Brigade,  when  this  Irish  Brigade  was  formed  they  were  first  to  go  to  help  the 
Turks  against  the  Russians. 

1  P.  37.        2  P.  38.         3  P.  38. 
142 


Speech   for   Prisoner. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


I  will  suggest  to  you  later  on,  I  do  not  know  what  the  opinion  of  the 
Turks  may  be  here,  but  certainly  the  man  who  went  to  recruit  Irishmen 
to  fight  for  the  Turks  deserved  recognition  for  splendid  courage. 

After  he  came  back,  Sir  Roger  Casement  spoke  to  the  men,  in  my  hearing,  in 
the  camp  in  No.  1  Lines,  No.  1  Company,  No.  2  Battalion.  He  used  to  come  into 
the  barrack  rooms.  He  made  a  speech  in  several  places — outside  and  inside  in  the 
barrack  rooms  he  made  these  speeches.  Those  are  the  words  that  passed  from 
Casement  on  this  occasion.  First  of  all,  the  Irish  Brigade  were  to  go  and  help  the 
Turks  against  the  Russians ;  and  secondly,  they  were  to  go  and  help  the  Germans 
against  the  British;  and  thirdly,  they  were  to  go  and  shed  blood  for  their  own 
native  country. 

This  is  the  first  mention  we  have  of  this  expansive  programme,  and,  as 
I  will  show  you  in  a  minute,  the  witness  himself  had  testified  to  totally 
different  speeches  in  agreement  with  all  the  other  witnesses,  and  he, 
under  his  own  hand,  gave  a  statement  of  his  evidence  that  he  was  coming 
into  the  box  to  prove  that,  directly  contradicts-  what  he  swears  when  he 
gets  into  the  box. 

I  heard  him  say  those  things.      I  never  saw  Casement  after  that. 

Observe  the  answer :  "  I  never  saw  him  after  that."  Just  bear  that  in 
mind,  because  in  order  to  escape  from  his  written  statement  he  suggested 
that  his  written  statement  only  referred  to  that  particular  day,  and  that 
on  that  particular  day,  or  that  particular  evening,  he  did  not  see  him, 
but  that  he  often  saw  him  afterwards,  and,  believing  that  he  was  triumph- 
ing over  the  foe,  when  re-examined  by  the  Attorney-General,  I  think  not 
to  the  Attorney-General's  pleasure,  he  said  he  saw  him  forty-six  times. 
I  will  turn  now  to  his  cross-examination1 — 

Can  you  fix  the  date  you  arrived  at  Limburg? — As  far  as  I  can  go,  we  arrived 
at  Limburg  early  in  December,  1914.  That  is  as  near  as  I  can  go. 

How  long  after  that  did  you  hear  this  talk  about  the  Turks  ?— I  have  heard  the 
talk  about  the  Turks  several  times. 

How  long  was  that  after  you  had  arrived  at  Limburg?  Listen,  is  this  true, 
"Casement  came  back  about  the  1st  of  February,  1915." 

I  was  reading  his  own  statement  of  his  evidence  to  him — 

Is  that  true? — Yes. 

And  Father  Nicholson  came  at  the  same  time.  Is  that  true? — Yes,  that  is  true. 
Father  Nicholson  came  there  about  that  time. 

I  suggest  to  you  that  the  witness  saw  that  he  was  coming  into  rather 
deeper  water,  and  he  commences  to  qualify  his  answers  a  little. 

Then  that  is  true.  Would  this  be  true,  that  you  saw  Casement  in  the  camp  at 
this  time,  but  he  did  not  speak  to  you,  and  you  never  saw  him  again?  Is  that 
true  ? — At  the  time  I  never  saw  him.  He  went  away.  I  have  seen  him  several 
times  in  Limburg. 

He  obviously  was  well  aware  of  what  was  coming,  I  suggest  to  you, 
gentlemen — 

On  this  occasion,  will  you  fix  the  date  of  the  occasion,  the  only  occasion,  so  it 
should  be  rooted  in  your  mind,  that  you  heard  him  speak  of  the  Turks  ? — I  cannot 
speak  to,  the  date  that  I  heard  him  speak  of  the  Turks  because  I  disremember. 

He  had  himself  fixed  the  date  in  his  evidence  prior  to  that,   and  he 
commences1  to  disremember  it  when  he  sees  he  is  in  difficulties. 
You  disremember  the  dates?— Yes. 
You  cannot  say  was  it  early  or  late? — I  cannot  say. 

1  P.  39. 

143 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


MP.  Sullivan 


Was  it  the  time  he  came  with  Father  Nicholson  ? — Yes. 

It  was  the  time  he  came  with  Father  Nicholson  ? — Yes,  it  was  on  his  third  visit. 

Did  he  come  with  Father  Nicholson  more  than  once? — No. 

Did  you  yourself  fix  the  date  of  Father  Nicholson  and  Sir  Roger  Casement 
coming  back  to  the  camp  as  the  1st  February,  1915?—!  did  not. 

Do  you  remember  making  the  statement  of  the  evidence  that  you  were  to  give  ? — I 
remember,  yes. 

To  whom  did  you  make  the  statement? — To  some  one  at  the  War  Office. 

How  long  ago? — On  the  27th  May  last. 

Was  it  taken  down  in  writing  in  your  presence? — Yes. 

And  you  signed  it? — Yes. 

Was  it  true  ? — Well,  there  was  a  lot  of  it ;   very  nearly  it  all  was  true. 

Gentlemen,  do  you  remember  the  pause  when  I  asked  him  was  it  true ; 
can  you  remember  it?  I  suggest  to  you  that  he  paused  a  long  time  before 
he  answered:  "  Well,  there  was  a  lot  of  it,  very  nearly  it  all  was  true." 
That  was  a  very  carefully  considered  answer. 

Am  I  to  understand  there  was  a  lot  of  it  that  was  not  true  ? — You  are  not  to 
understand  there  was  a  lot  of  it  that  was  not  true. 

Was  it  all  true? — Yes,  it  was  all  true.  My  statement  I  gave  there,  yes,  it 
was  all  true,  only  I  did  not  give  them  all  my  statement ;  I  forgot  something,  but 
brought  a  lot  of  it  back  to  my  memory  since  then. 

Listen  to  the  statement  that  was  all  true  at  the  time:  "Casement  came  back 
"about  the  1st  February,  1915,  and  Father  Nicholson  came  at  the  same  time." 
Was  that  true? — Yes,  that  was  true. 

About  the  1st  February,  1915? — I  cannot  fix  the  date,  you  know. 

Did  you  fix  the  date  ? — To  the  best  of  my  opinion  it  was  about  that  time  he 
came  there. 

Then,  reading  again  from  his  statement,  I  say — "  When  Casement  came 
"  back  we  were  marched  up  to  barrack  No.  41  by  sections  as  usual,  and 
"  Quinless  told  us  " — then  there  is  the  statement  about  the  Turks  coming 
from  Quinless,  that  Casement  had  told  him  to  tell  the  Irish  Brigade  about 
the  Turks — 

Did  you  say  that? — Yes. 
Was  that  true? — Yes. 

The  statement  is  further  read ;  that  is  not  what  Sir  Roger  Casement  told 
him  at  all,  but  somebody  else  told  him,  and  said  it  was  Sir  Roger  Case- 
ment said  he  was  to  be  told;  that  is  a  very  different  story.  Then  it  is 
read  to  him  again  :  "  '  I  saw  Casement  in  the  camp  at  this  time  ' — 
"  this  was  about  the  1st  February,  1915,  when  he  came  back  with  Father 
"  Nicholson — '  but  he  did  not  speak  to  me.  I  never  saw  him  again/  : 
Observe,  he  had  sworn  in  his  direct  evidence,  before  I  cross-examined  him 
about  his  statement,  that  after  this  day,  whatever  be  the  date,  he  never 
saw  Sir  Roger  Qasement  again.  Then  he  says  it  and  repeats  it,  or,  rather, 
it  is  read  out  to  him  from  his  statement  that  he  had  given,  taken  down 
in  writing,  and  had  signed  on  the  27th  May — "  I  saw  Casement  in  the 
"  camp  at  this  time,  but  he  did  not  speak  to  me.  I  never  saw  him 
"  again/'  That  was  in  the  written  statement;  he  is  asked — "  Was  it 
"  true?  "  and  he  says,  "  On  the  previous  evening  I  did  not  see  him." 
Then  I  say — 

Let  me  give  it  to  you  again  :  "I  saw  Casement  in  the  camp  at  this  time  " — this  was 
about  the  1st  February,  1915,  when  he  came  back  with  Father  Nicholson — "but  he  did 
"not  speak  to  me.  I  never  saw  him  again."  Is  that  true? — He  did  not  speak  to  me 
on  that  evening.  I  did  not  see  him,  he  went  away  out  of  that  camp  on  that  evening, 
but  I  saw  him  afterwards.  I  did  not  see  him  again  on  that  evening. 

144 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


Having  on  the  27th  May  dictated  that  evidence,  that  after  that 
day  he  never  saw  Sir  Roger  Casement  again,  having  in  answer  to  the 
Solicitor-General  sworn  that  never  after  that  speech,  conversation,  or 
whatever  it  was,  did  he  see  Sir  Roger  Casement  again,  he  now  states 
that  he  did  not  see  him  that  evening.  He  says,  "  He  went  away  out  of 
"  the  camp  on  that  evening,  but  I  saw  him  afterwards.  I  did  not  see 
"  him  again  on  that  evening/'  I  read  again  to  him  what  he  said — "  I 
"  never  saw  him  again."  That  is  what  he  stated  was  going  to  be  his 
evidence.  Then  he  answers,  "  On  that  evening."  Then  I  say1 — 

Was  it  true?  I  will  go  further.  "I  heard  that  he  gave  an  address  to  the 
"Munsters  in  their  barracks,  and  that  they  shouted  him  down.  I  could  hear  the 
"shouting  going  on."  Do  not  you  see  you  are  pointing  the  fact  that  you  never  saw 
him  again,  although  you  heard  he  was  in  a  different  part  of  the  camp?— On  that 
evening  he  did  address  the  Munster  Fusiliers  in  the  barracks. 

But  you  were  not  there? — I  was  not  in  the  lines. 

You  could  only  hear  shouting? — He  was  a  free  man  in  Germany  and  could  go 
about  where  he  liked. 

Follow  me  again.  I  will  give  you  every  opportunity  of  understanding.  Was 
it  true,  of  the  1st  February  occasion,  that  he  came  to  the  camp  with  Father 
Nicholson,  you  saw  him  in  the  camp,  but  he  did  not  speak  to  you,  and  you  never 
saw  him  again? — On  that  evening  I  never  saw  him  again,  but  he  was  in  the  camp 
several  times  afterwards,  and  I  saw  him  in  the  camp.  I  never  saw  him  again  on 
that  evening. 

You  heard  he  gave  an  address  to  the  Munsters,  and  could  hear  the  shouting? — 
Yes. 

But  you  never  saw  him? — On  that  evening  after. 

Will  you  give  me  the  date  you  next  saw  him? — He  was  in  the  camp  every 
day,  I  might  say. 

By  this  time  he  has  parted  from  the  statement  he  never  saw  him  after 
the  occasion  in  question;  the  statement  that  he  saw  him  several  times 
afterwards,  and  we  have  the  statement  that  he  might  say  that  he  saw 
him  every  day  afterwards.  "  But  only  once  with  Father  Nicholson." 
That  was  about  the  1st  February.  Then  he  is  cross-examined  about  it 
again2 — 

If  he  did  not  speak  to  you  that  day,  he  could  not  have  said  anything  about 
the  Turks  or  Russians  or  anything  else? — He  spoke  about  the  Turks  and  Russians, 
and  also  left  orders  with  this  man  that  joined  the  Irish  Brigade  to  tell  the  Irishmen 
that  joined  the  brigade i^i,'ai 

Are  you  telling  us  what  you  heard  him  say,  or  repeating  what  somebody  else 
told  you ;  what  is  it  ? — I  am  telling  you  now  about  him,  what  he  said. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Who  is  "he"?— Sir  Roger  Casement. 

By  Mr.  SULLIVAN — Was  it  what  he  said  in  your  presence  ? — In  my  presence  and  in 
the  presence  of  about  50  more  of  our  men — that  when  they  joined  this  Irish  Brigade 
they  were  to  go  and  help  the  Turks  against  the  Russians  on  the  Turkish  frontier, 
then  after  that  they  were  to  go  and  help  the  Germans  against  the  British,  and  then 
after  that  they  were  to  go  and  shed  blood  for  their  own  native  country. 

And  after  that? — He  said  no  more  then.  He  said  that  in  the  presence  of  my 
comrades  and  myself. 

Then  he  is  asked  about  the  Volunteer  movement,  and  so  forth.  But 
you  see,  gentlemen,  that  witness  is  the  only  witness  who  gives  an  account 
of  a  speech  which,  if  delivered,  contradicts  every  single  word  that  Sir 
Roger  Casement  had  ever  said  in  the  presence  of  any  other  human  being, 
and  contradicts  every  other  speech  that  this  witness  heard  him  make. 

1  P.  40.  2  P.  41. 

L  145 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


Being,   I    suggest   to    you,    a  little   worn    by   his   cross-examination,    the 
learned  Attorney- General  re-examined  him  to  re-establish  hie  credit,   and 
observe  the  questions  that  were  put  to  him  to  give  him  an  opportunity  of 
explaining  how  he  came  to  have  so  many  variations  of  the  same  thing1— 
How  many  times  do   you  think   you   saw   Casement   altogether? 

Of  course,  the  witness  might  confuse  either  one  person  with  another, 
or  one  visit  with  another,  or  something  of  that  kind,  if  he  was  in  a  con- 
fused state,  in  which  a  thing  was  happening  two  or  three  or  four  times, 
and  he  might  pick  out  one  occasion  rather  than  another,  but  the  witness 
was  evidently  under  the  impression  that  he  had  not  sworn  to  enough  visits 
of  Sir  Roger  Casement. 

How  many  times  do  you  think  you  saw  Casement  altogether? — I  have  seen  him 
a  lot  of  times. 

About  how  many  ? — I  disremember  how  many  times ;  he  was  there  so  often  in 
that  camp. 

How  long  were  you  there? — I  was  there  for  seven  months. 

Was  he  there  at  intervals  ?— He  was  there  the  first  time  I  landed  at  Limburg. 

How  many  times — not  exactly — but  roughly,  do  you  think  you  heard  him 
speak? — I  have  heard  him  speak  several  times,  for  every  time  he  was  in  the  camp 
he  was  all  the  time  talking. 

Three,  four,  or  six  times,  or  how  many? — Nearer  forty-six  times. 

This  is  the  only  witness  who  gave  testimony  to  a  state  of  affairs  which 
I  most  confidently  ask  you  not  to  believe.  On  every  other  occasion  this 
man,  whatever  you  think  of  his  politics  and  his  views  of  public  affairs, 
had  made  the  only  appeal  that  I  have  ever  heard  made  to  any  of  my  country- 
men, to  invite  to  take  up  arms  on  any  occasion,  an  appeal  that  has  recruited 
•a  quarter  of  a  million  of  them  to  the  Colours  at  the  present  moment,  that 
they  should  take  up  arms  to  fight  for  Ireland,  and  I  would  most  respect- 
fully subscribe  to  the  doctrine  that  no  Irishman  has  a  right  to  take 
up  arms  or  risk  his  life  for  any  cause  that  is  not  in  the  service  of  Ireland. 

Gentlemen,  the  event  upon  which,  and  upon  which  alone,  the  transfer 
of  these  troops1  to  Ireland  was  to  take  place  has  not  yet  happened,  even  on 
the  most  grim  view  of  Admiralty  despatches.  There  are  these  men  remain- 
ing in  idleness  in  Germany.  You  never  catch  a  glimpse  of  them  afterwards, 
except  to  hear  that  they  still  walk  about  Limburg  in  the  new  and  perhaps 
somewhat  gaudy  uniform.  No  one  has  seen  them  marching  or  counter- 
marching, or  even  indulging  in  sham  fights  under  the  command  of  any 
German  officer.  They  have  never  appeared  in  arms1  to  the  detriment  of  any 
one  of  His  Majesty's  subjects,  and,  accordingly,  I  ask  you  to  believe  that 
what  was  done  there  never  in  fact  afforded  the  smallest  military  aid  or 
any  other  aid  or  comfort  to  the  German  Government;  but  if  you  will 
believe  what  is  far  more  important,  whether  he  is  right  or  wrong  in  what 
he  did,  that  the  man  who  sought  to  recruit  them  honestly  asked  them  to 
join  in  a  cause  which  was  to  be  the  service  of  their  own  country,  and  their 
own  country  alone,  and  repudiate  any  idea  that  whatever  benefit  any  other 
country  may  have  thought  they  would  gain,  or  wished  they  would  gain,  out 
of  such  a  transaction,  his  motive  and  his  intention  were  clean  and  clear, 
that  he,  at  all  events,  would  be  no  party  to  his  countrymen  being  used 
at  the  risk  of  their  lives  in  any  cause  that  was  not  the  cause  of  their  own 
land.  There  is  suggested,  and  I  do  submit  to  you  it  is  a  mean  and  im- 

i  P.  42. 
146 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


proper  suggestion,  that  in  some  way  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  was  responsible 
for  rations  being  reduced  in  the  prison  camp  in  Germany  at  the  end 
of  February,  a  reduction  made  in  the  amount  of  bread,  a  couple  of  months 
afterwards — I  think  the  date  was  fixed  in  April,  but  at  the  moment  I  forget 
it — a  reduction  in  the  quality  of  their  rations,  and  the  substitution  for 
potatoes  of  some  other  food.  The  man  who  testified  to  it  testified  to  this, 
that  at  the  time  of  these  reductions  Sir  Roger  Casement  was  not  in  the 
camp,  but  that  the  recruiting  went  on  after  the  reduction  of  rations  as 
before  it.  No  man  was  ever  threatened,  no  man  that  came  before  you  was 
ever  threatened  with  reduction  of  rations  if  he  did  not  do  what  Sir  Roger 
Casement  asked  him  to  do.  Those  who  joined  were  liberated  from  the 
camp,  they  were  better  clothed,  and  I  have  no  doubt  they  were  better  fed 
than  the  ordinary  prisoner.  No  man  has  testified  in  this  Court  to  any 
whisper  of  a  threat  from  any  human  being  that  his  rations  would  be 
reduced  if  he  did  not  comply  with  the  request  of  Sir  Roger  Casement, 
but  it  was  said  that  after  Sir  Roger  Casement's  visits  rations  were  in  fact 
reduced,  and  if  they  were  not,  gentlemen,  you  would  not  think  much  of 
your  Navy.  If  rations  are  not  reduced  in  Germany,  you  might  as  well 
scuttle  your  ships.  Of  course,  when  you  are  dealing  with  a  people  in  the 
position  of  the  Germans,  the  first  who  will  feel  the  pinch  of  hunger  if 
supplies  run  short  in  Germany,  you  may  be  perfectly  sure,  will  be  the 
soldiers  who  had  fought  against  the  Germans.  Are  you  to  believe  when 
rations  are  reduced — I  do  not  suppose  it  can  be  all  a  joke  to  suggest 
that  they  are  pretty  short  of  some  foodstuffs  in  Germany — when  rations 
are  reduced  in  a  country  in  which,  gentlemen,  we  have  reason  to  believe 
food  is  not  so  plentiful  or  as  cheap  as  you  may  thank  God  it  is  in  your  own 
country,  is  it  creditable  to  attribute  to  this  man  in  the  dock  the  mean 
and  malicious  motives  that  any  failure  on  his  part  to  achieve  his  object 
amongst  these  men  who,  whether  they  agree  with  him  or  disagree  with 
him,  are  his  countrymen — that  he  was  any  party  to  starving  them  in  order 
to  vindicate  his  own  conceit  and  his  self-sufficiency?  Is  there  any  evidence 
of  anything  so  mean  or  ignoble  about  what  he  has  said  or  done  if  the 
version  of  what  he  has  said  and  done  be  as  I  ask  you  to  believe  it  has 
been  established  to  be?  Is  that  consistent  with  the  mind  of  a  man  who 
out  of  petty  spitefulness  and  wickedness  would  starve  2500  men  because 
some  few  or  many  of  them  declined  to  oblige  him  in  one  of  his  political 
projects;  is  that  the  opinion  you  have  of  him?  Is  humanity  so  mean  and 
so  small  that  the  man  with  the  talk  of  high  principles,  the  talk  of  patriotism 
that  my  learned  friend  scorns,  behind  the  backs  of  those  who  do  not  listen 
is  intriguing  that  they  will  linger  on  in  starvation,  and  merely  because 
they  have  not  listened  to  him?  I  ask  you  to  scout  that  from  your  minds 
and  not  to  allow  your  judgments  which  have  to  be  exercised  upon  what  I 
submit  to  you  are  broad  issues  in  this  case,  for,  believe  me,  you  will 
not  find  me  pettifogging — do  not  let  your  judgment  be  warped  by  insinua- 
tions of  this  kind,  which  have  not  found  expression  in  any  clear-cut  charge 
from  the  lips  of  any  human  being  that  I  have  heard  speak  in  this  Court. 

I  have  dealt  with  the  evidence  of  what  happened  in  Limburg,  at  all 
events,  with  so  much  of  the  evidence  as  has  occurred  to  me  to  be  the 
material  portions  for  the  themes  upon  which  I  shall  have  to  address  you 
later.  I  come  now  to  the  evidence  from  Ireland  to  see  how  it  affects  the 

147 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


prisoner.  Gentlemen,  I  wish  you  clearly  to  understand  there  is  not  in  this 
case  any  allegation  against  Sir  Roger  Casement  of  the  commission  of  any 
illegality  in  that  part  of  His  Majesty's  United  Kingdom  called  Ireland.  This 
Court  has  no  cognisance  of  such.  If  he  has  offended  in  that  part  of  the 
realm,  in  that  part  of  the  realm  let  him  be  adjudged  and  tried  before  the 
community  against  whom  he  may  be  supposed  to  have  sinned;  but,  so 
far  as  this  case  is  concerned,  there  is  no  allegation  in  this  case  triable 
before  you,  that  Sir  Roger  Casement,  in  fact,  committed  any  illegal 
act  within  Ireland.  He  was  charged,  though  no  evidence  was  given  of 
the  charge  here,  and  could  not  be  given  of  the  charge  here,  for  you  could 
not  try  it  here — he  was  charged,  which  was  the  high-water  mark  of  the 
guilt  alleged  against  him  there,  we  have  it  in  evidence,  with  breach  of  the 
regulations  made  under  the  Defence  of  the  Realm  Act,  and  nothing  more, 
and  the  breach  of  the  regulations  with  which  he  was  charged  was  that, 
contrary  to  those  regulations,  he  landed  in  Ireland  those  three  pistols  and 
that  box  of  ammunition.  That  represents,  so  far  as  we  have  heard,  a  charge 
formulating  the  high-water  mark  of  his  Irish  illegality.  But  you  cannot 
inquire  into  anything  connected  with  his  movements  in  Ireland  save  so  far 
as  they  are  relevant  to  the  charges  made  of  the  acts  he  has  alleged  to  have 
committed  in  Germany,  for  in  the  indictment  upon  which  he  stands 
arraigned  he  is  not  charged  with  doing  anything  illegal  in  any  other  portion 
of  the  world's  surface  than  in  the  Empire  of  Germany,  and  therefore  it  is 
that  I  have  put  in  the  forefront  of  my  address  the  consideration  of  the 
German  evidence,  because  on  the  German  evidence  I  will  submit  to  you 
the  case  must  stand  or  fall.  He  arrived  in  Ireland,  and,  a®  I  suppose  we 
may  take  cognisance  of  the  fact  that  Ireland  is  an  island,  I  presume  he 
travelled  over  the  sea.  He  is  found  in  Ireland  near  a  lonely  strand, 
eome  place  10  or  12  miles  west  of  the  town  of  Tralee. 

A,s  I  understand  the  Crown's  case  with  regard  to  the  Irish  witnesses, 
they  are  really  seeking  to  deal  with  the  sixth  paragraph  of  the  overt  acts 
alleged  in  the  indictment  against  the  prisoner.  As  you  have  heard  it 
read  to  you,  you  will  perhaps  remember  that  he  was  charged  with  setting 
out  from  Germany,  in  order  to  carefully  keep  every  treasonable  act  charged 
outside  the  realm  of  England,  and  I  venture  to  suggest  outside  also  that 
part  of  His  Majesty's  Kingdom  called  Ireland,  and  well  within  the  frontiers 
of  the  German  Empire,  and  the  Crown  do  not  allege  that  outside  of  the 
German  Empire  Sir,  Roger  Casement  committed  any  overt  act  connected 
with  the  treason  charged  here,  namely,  connected  with  his  recruiting  for 
the  German  Army,  for  that  is  the  plain  meaning  of  what  they  suggest 
against  him.  There  was  given  in  evidence  a  peculiar  fact,  the  bearing  of 
which  I  am  at  a  loss  now  to  understand  because  we  have  got  the  details. 
I  nearly  called  him  a  seaman,  but  a  signaller  on  board  the  sloop  "  Blue- 
"  bell  "  was  examined,  and  he  has  told  you  that  on  the  21st  of  April, 
at  half -past  six  in  the  evening,  the  "  Bluebell  "  sighted  a  steamer  in  the 
Atlantic  Ocean.  The  Attorney- General,  in  opening  the  case,  stated  that 
it  was  somewhere  near  Tralee,  but  it  now  appears  from  the  evidence  of 
Signaller  Waghorn  that  this  steamer  was  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean  at  a  point 
which  is  very  easily  defined,  because  it  is  about  138  miles  from  Daunt's 
Rock  and  it  is  about  90  miles  from  the  land,  and  I  think  there  can  be  no 
148 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


doubt  that  that  represents  a  position,  roughly  speaking,  90  miles  south 
of  Cape  Clear,  on  the  south  coast  of  Ireland.  Tralee  is  on  the  west  of 
Ireland ;  Tralee  Bay  is  a  large  indentation  running  almost  down  east  and 
west,  and  you  see  from  the  map  if  you  look  down  the  bay  you  look  almost 
straight  at  the  setting  sun.  The  ship  is  found  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean, 
90  miles  off  Cape  Clear,  which  is  on  the  south  coast  of  Ireland,  and  how 
is  she  heading?  You  gather  that  from  the  explanation  that  the  ship 
attempted  to  give  of  her  own  motion,  because  whether  it  was  true  or  false, 
and  some  of  it  was  certainly  false,  you  will  probably  be  of  opinion  that 
her  captain  told  no  more  lies  than  were  necessary,  and  none  that  were 
inconsistent,  when  he  stated  that  he  was  bound  from  Bergen  to  Genoa 
as  being  the  explanation  of  his  position  in  the  ocean  and  the  course  that  he 
was  steering.  It  would  hardly  be  of  any  use  to  represent  to  one  of  His 
Majesty's  sloops  of  war  that  you  were  bound  from  Bergen  to  Genoa  if 
the  course  you  were  steering  would  bring  you  into  the  Bristol  Channel  or 
any  other  direction  than  the  track  by  which  you  could  reach  Genoa. 
Accordingly,  you  may  take  it  as  reasonably  well-established,  that  at  6.30 
that  evening  this  ship  was  travelling  in  a  direction  which  was  leaving 
Ireland  further  and  further  away  from  her;  she  was  90  miles  from  the 
south  coast  of  Ireland,  and  not  anywhere  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Tralee. 
It  was  because  of  that  that  I  attempted  to  make  some  objection  to  the 
evidence  of  the  witness,  because,  gentlemen,  there  is  no  connection  what- 
ever between  Sir  Roger  Casement  at  M'Kenna's  Fort,  12  miles  west  of 
Tralee,  on  the  west  coast  of  Ireland,  and  a  ship  apparently  heading  for 
the  Straits  of  Gibraltar,  90  miles  from  the  south  coast  of  Ireland.  I 
do  not  understand  that  it  is  suggested  that  perhaps  Sir  Roger  Casement 
travelled  by  this  ship;  that  can  hardly  be  the  suggestion.  It  would  be 
a  peculiar  suggestion  that  apparently  this  ship,  coming  down  the  west 
coast  of  Ireland  on  her  course  from  Bergen  to  the  Straits,  threw  him  over- 
board with  two  companions  in  that  cockleshell  of  a  boat  of  which  you 
saw  the  picture,  and  let  them  shift  for  themselves;  that  is  hardly  the 
suggestion;  but  certain  it  is  that  all  that  we  know  of  this  ship  in  the 
present  caise  is  that  she  was  found  at  6.30  on  the  21st  April  out  in  the 
middle  of  the  Atlantic,  far  out  of  sight  of  land,  on  a  course  which 
the  captain,  at  all  events,  hoped  would  be  believed  to  be  the  course 
to  Genoa,  when  he  told  the  "  Bluebell  "  that  that  was  where  he  was 
making  for.  She  had  on  board  a  number  of  rifles,  and  we  have  had  an 
interesting  discussion  upon  what  rifles  they  are,  the  pattern  they  are, 
the  pattern  of  the  cartridges,  the  cartridge  clips,  and  the  bayonet  case; 
the  strange  thing  being,  as  far  as  I  recollect,  that  these  articles  were  of 
different  nationalities.  One  was  Russian,  another  was  South  American, 
the  cartridge  clips,  I  think,  were  Russian;  the  cartridges  could  not  be 
identified  as  being  any  definite  cartridge  that  fits  the  Russian  gun.  How 
that  ship,  whose  fate  we  know,  can  in  any  way  be  brought  into  our  story 
in  connection  with  Sir  Roger  Casement,  I  have  no  idea,  because  the  state- 
ment upon  which  the  story  was  introduced  by  the  Attorney-General  has 
certainly  not  been  verified,  that  off  Tralee  and  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Sir  Roger  Casement  this  mysterious  ship  was  seen  and  captured.  We 
know,  in  fact,  that  she  wasi  nowhere  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Tralee 
at  all. 

149 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


Now,  gentlemen,  I  pass  from  a  consideration  of  the  evidence  to  etate 
to  you  what  I  know  you  will  listen  to  with  attention,  what  is  the  explana- 
tion of  what  these  men  have  testified  to?  Gentlemen,  one  gets  in  the 
habits  of  phrase  from  the  country  and  the  neighbourhood  in  which  one 
lives.  I  presume,  and  it  is  perfectly  evident,  that  an  Englishman  speaks 
of  this  Empire  under  the  name  of  England,  an  Irishman  calls  his  own 
country  by  its  own  name,  so  does  a  Scotchman,  and,  I  think  the  habit 
also  prevails  in  Wales.  I  want  you  to  understand  the  position  that  Ire- 
land bears  towards  your  country,  because  a  great  deal  of  the  present 
case,  and  the  explanation  of  the  present  case,  depends  upon  your  forming 
a  perfectly  true,  proper,  and  just  appreciation  of  the  position  of  Ireland 
with  regard  to  yourselves.  I  think  the  Attorney-General  spoke  of  Sir 
Roger  Casement's  services  to  England.  Sir  Roger  Casement  wasi  not  in 
the  service  of  England.  Sir  Roger  Casement  was  in  the  service  of  the 
United  Kingdom;  he  was  in  the  service  of  His  Majesty  in  respect  of  the 
whole  Empire  of  His  Majesty's  Dominion.  In  Ireland  you  have  not  only  a 
separate  people,  you  have  a  separate  country.  An  Irishman's  loyalty  is 
loyalty  to  Ireland,  and  it  would  be  a  very  sorry  day  for  the  Empire  when 
loyalty  to  one's  own  native  land  should  be  deemed  to  be  treason  in  a 
sister  country.  There  is  no  English  authority  in  Ireland,  however 
improperly  for  the  isake  of  political  factions  the  name  of  your  country  may 
be  invoked.  No  English  official  exercises  the  smallest  authority  when  he 
crosses  the  Channel.  Those  who  hold  high  offices  here  have  no  position 
or  no  official  position  in  Ireland.  His  Majesty,  under  the  Act  of  Union, 
in  fact,  exercises  the  right  preserved  by  the  articles  of  the  Treaty,  and 
he  appoints  his  Irish  officers  under  the  great  seal  of  Ireland.  No  person 
has  any  constitutional  right  in  Ireland  to  seek  to  bully  or  dictate  to  any 
Irishman  in  the  name  of  any  other  section  of  His  Majesty's  United 
Kingdom.  We  are  your  fellow-citizens,  but  by  no  means  your  inferiors 
or  your  slaves.  You  respect  our  rights  in  Ireland  as  we  should  respect 
yours,  but  when  you  step  inside  that  part  of  His  Majesty's  Kingdom, 
His  Majesty  rules  there  not  by  any  title  of  King  of  your  land,  but  in  respect 
of  his  title  as  King  and  ruler  of  the  United  Kingdom. 

Gentlemen,  if  in  Ireland  you  cannot  find  within  the  constitution 
anything  that  has  any  right  to  call  itself  England,  in  the  conduct  of  Irish 
affairs,  you  will  then  ask  yourselves  what  was  there  in  Ireland  in  1914 
and  1915  purporting  to  act  in  the  name  of  England  that  required  to  be 
fought  to  secure  Home  Rule.  I  would  be  most  unwilling  to  say  anything 
that  might  in  the  slightest  degree  seem  to  be  trespassing  or  infringing  on 
the  opinions  of  any  person  in  this  Court  or  outside  it,  but  you  will  have 
to  answer  that  question,  and  look  back  and  seek  to  find  upon  the  evidence 
what  was  the  power  that  called  itself  England  in  Ireland  in  1914,  for, 
as  I  have  already  pointed  out,  under  the  constitution  there  is  no  English 
power  in  Ireland.  You  have  got  a  glimpse  from  two  or  three  or  four 
witnesses  of  the  state  of  affairs  existing  in  that  country,  almost  within 
gunshot  of  your  own  country,  that  casts  a  reflection  and  a  disgrace  upon 
our  civilisation.  It  is  a  dreadful  thing,  gentlemen,  a  dreadful  thing  to 
contemplate  that  any  one  within  the  King's  peace  in  any  part  of  his 
United  Kingdom  should  be  subjected  to  the  bullying  and  intimidation 
150 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


and  threat  of  armed  force  to  be  exercised  against  the  liberties  secured 
to  him  by  the  constitution  and  by  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland ;  and  yet  that  was  the  state  of  affairs  in  Ireland  as  you  see  by  the 
evidence.  What  was  the  necessity  of  arming  men  in  Ireland?  As 
one  witness  says,  to  secure  Home  Rule,  another  to  free  Ireland,  another 
to  secure  the  freedom  of  Ireland.  To  protect  the  liberties  of  Ireland 
against  whom  had  you  to  arm?  Was  there  in  Ireland  in  those  years  an 
armed  body  which  most  improperly  used  the  name  of  your  country  behind 
which  to  shelter  the  invasion  of  the  liberties  secured  to  Irishmen  under 
the  constitution?  You  have  evidence  that  there  was,  unless  indeed  you 
believe,  being  constitutionally  ignorant  in  this  Court  of  what  barbarous 
law  may  in  fact  prevail  beyond  the  Channel — unless  indeed  you  would 
assume  from  the  immunity  with  which  armed  bands  paraded  the  country 
north  and  south  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  attacking  one  another  sooner 
or  later,  unless  you  believe  from  their  immunity  that  these  things  may 
be  done  under  the  laws  in  Ireland,  and  that  we  who  desire  to  live  at 
peace  and  to  possess  what  we  are  entitled  to,  our  own  opinions,  may  not 
form  them  in  Ireland  save  at  the  bayonet's  point  of  some  faction  or  other. 
Does  not  that  show  you  in  one  gleam  what  it  was  that  Sir  Roger  Casement 
was  doing  in  Limburg  when  he  recruited  the  Irish  Brigade  ?  Observe  the 
state  of  affairs  as  you  have  it  proved  in  evidence.  There  was  in  the  north 
of  Ireland  an  armed  body  of  men  ostensibly  marching  about,  as  Robinson 
proves,  in  Belfast,  deliberately  originated  with  the  avowed  object  of  resist- 
ing the  operation  of  an  Act  of  Parliament  which  had  the  approval  of  the 
rest  of  the  country.  They  armed,  and  nothing  was  said  to  them;  they 
drilled,  and  nothing  was  said  to  them;  they  marched  and  countermarched; 
the  authorities  stood  by  and  looked  at  them.  The  police  were  power- 
loss.  They  had  great  forces  behind  them,  great  names  and  men  of  high 
position.  Imagine  the  feeling  in  the  country  testified  to,  reaching  as  far 
south  as  what  we  anciently  called  the  Kingdom  of  Kerry,  now  County 
Kerry.  To  the  County  of  Kerry,  in  dread  of  these  men,  there  came  a 
rumour  of  the  police  being  powerless,  the  civil  power  being  paralysed, 
the  civil  Government  practically  abdicated — there  came  a  rumour  that  all 
that  stood  between  peace  and  the  rifles  of  those  men,  His  Majesty's  Army, 
might  not  perhaps  be  relied  upon. 

What  are  you  to  do  when,  after  years  of  labour,  your  representatives 
may  have  won  something  that  you  yearn  for,  for  many  a  long  day,  won  it 
under  the  constitution,  had  it  guaranteed  by  the  King  and  the  Commons, 
and  you  are  informed  that  you  should  not  possess  it  because  those  that 
disliked  it  were  arming  to  resist  the  King  and  Commons  and  to  blow 
the  statute  off  the  book  with  powder?  The  civil  police  could  not  protect 
you,  and  the  military  force  would  perhaps  prove  inadequate  for  your 
support.  You  may  lie  down  under  it,  but  if  you  are  men,  to  arms; 
when  all  else  faik  defend  yourself.  If  the  civil  government  will  not 
protect  you,  if  the  constabulary  cannot  secure  your  rights,  if  you  cannot 
rely  upon  brigades,  the  ultimate  resort  for  any  man  in  the  protection 
of  his  constitutional  freedom  is  to  stand  with  arms  in  his  hands,  and  if 
a  civil  government  can  be  terrorised  into  obtaining  his  rights,  try  if  his 

151 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Mr.  Sullivan 

attitude  will  not  inspire  them  with  sufficient  reispect  to  do  what  is  right 
without  fear,  favour,  or  affection. 

That,  gentlemen,  is  the  case  that  I  present  to  you  on  behalf  of  Sir 
Roger  Casement;  that  is  the  explanation  of  everything  that  he  has  done. 
What  is  to  be  said  against  him?  Gentlemen,  this  condition  of  affairs  had 
indeed  been  reached  prior  to  this  war  that  has  broken  out  with  the  Empire 
of  Germany.  There  was  indeed  an  understanding  and  a  convention 
between  the  greater  leaders  of  these  factions  arming  and  counter-arming 
that  for  a  while,  while  the  danger  to  the  Empire  existed,  this  dreadful 
state  of  affairs  should  be  put  an  end  to ;  that,  in  the  meantime,  faith  has 
been  kept  let  us  all  thank  Providence,  for  it  enabled  my  countrymen  in 
the  service  of  Ireland,  for  they  are  serving  the  glorious  traditions  of  their 
own  land,  to  write  their  names  in  every  battlefield  in  Europe,  a  thing 
that  would  have  been  impossible  without  such  understanding.  Do  not 
imagine,  though  you  may  live  in  a  great  city  of  the  Empire,  that  you  can 
sneer  at  the  loyal  patriotism  of  these  men.  We  recruited  none  of  them  to 
fight  for  England ;  no  man  ever  made  such  an  appeal  as  that  to  an  Irish 
audience.  Each  man  went  forth  believing  that  in  serving  in  this  war, 
serving  the  Empire,  he  was  in  truth  rendering  the  best  service  he  could 
to  his  own  little  country.  But  how  about  at  home?  If  you  are  indeed  to 
scrutinise  the  intention  of  Sir  Roger  Casement  in  what  he  did  abroad, 
not  by  what  he  intended  or  what  was  passing  in  his  mind,  but  the  profit 
the  German  politicians  might  calculate  that  they  might  ultimately  get  out 
of  it,  you  might  go  back  and  find  that  German  calculations  do  not  all  come 
right,  for  you  might  well  think  that  the  enterprising  commercial  country 
that  filled  Ulster  with  Mausers  in  1914  expected  a  better  dividend  than 
she  got.  The  truce  was  kept  in  the  main,  but,  gentlemen,  not  a  single 
rifle  was  given  up.  As  we  have  heard  from  the  witnesses,  so  far  from 
armaments  ceasing,  on  the  16th  August  the  sole  obstacle  to  the  importa- 
tion of  arms  into  Ireland  was  dropped  immediately  after  the  outbreak  of 
the  war.  No  arms  were  given  up — more  arms  were  coming  in.  The 
only  security  for  peace,  for  real  and  permanent  peace  in  any  country,  is 
such  confidence  in  the  administration  of  justice  as  will  cause  men  to 
feel  that  they  run  no  risk  that  requires  their  bearing  arms  in  any  part  of 
His  Majesty's  dominions.  Well,  the  arms  were  still  there,  the  purpose 
still  undisavowed.  The  truce  was  on  the  face  of  it  but  a  temporary 
arrangement,  a  postponement  of  the  threat  of  bloodshed  and  outrage 
which  was  promised  to  the  country  when  the  war  was  over;  and  can  you 
blame  that  there  were  found  in  Ireland  fortunately  a  minority  of  Irishmen 
who  thought,  and,  so  far  as  formula  goes,  they  thought  right,  that  their 
first  duty  of  loyalty  was  to  the  land  of  their  birth,  but  who  thought 
that  she  was  still  in  danger  while  the  country  remained  divided  in  armed 
camps,  and  there  was  only  to  be  postponed  until  the  war  ended  the  time 
when  Ireland  was  to  become  the  foundation  for  two  hells?  Many  may 
have  thought  so  honestly  and  loyally;  we  who  differ  from  them  have  no 
right  to  criticise  their  judgment  because  we  disagree  with  it.  They  have 
a  right  to  think,  and  such  men  have  a  right  if  in  their  judgment  the 
country  was  in  such  danger,  that  it  was  better  to  stay  at  home  and 
152 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 


Mr.  Sullivan 

provide  against  this  ultimate  happening  than  it  was  to  go  forth  and  serve 
in  the  Irish  Brigades ;  men  have  a  right  to  think  that,  and  in  view  of  the 
dreadful  state  of  affaire  which  you  have  established  in  evidence  before  you, 
how  can  you  blame  a  man  for  thinking  that?  And  accordingly  there  were 
found  men  who,  distrusting  the  truce  proclaimed  in  Ireland,  seeing  that 
one  man  would  observe  his  neighbour  had  not  given  up  his  rifle,  another 
that  another  had  got  a  new  gun,  he  would  arm  himself,  and  one  by  one 
in  small  quantities  you  have  the  danger  of  the  arms  still  coming  in,  and 
people  fearing  that  the  truce  was  not  real,  and  that  any  moment  there 

might  break  out 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Where  is  there  evidence  of  this? 
Mr.   SULLIVAN — The   evidence   of  the   sergeant   and  the   evidence   of 
Robinson. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Of  what  you  are  now  saying? 
The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  was  most  loath  to  intervene,  but  I  have 
heard  a  great  many  statements  which  are  wholly  uncorroborated. 
The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — You  have  the  right  to  intervene. 
The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Statements   as  to  the  importation   of  rifles 
into  the  north  of  Ireland. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — We  have  allowed  you  very  great  latitude. 
I  confess  for  myself  I  have  found  it  rather  difficult  not  to  intervene  on 
several  occasions,  and  I  intervene  at  this  moment  because  I  think  you 
are  stating  matter  which  is  not  in  evidence  or  which  I  have  no  recollection 
of  being  stated  in  evidence.  I  know  the  general  passages  to  which  you 
refer. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  am  exceedingly  sorry  your  lordship  did  not  inter- 
vene isooner;  I  was  referring  to  the  evidence  of  Sergeant  Hearn.  I  am 
exceedingly  sorry  I  have  gone  outside  what  I  ought,  but  what  I  was 
referring  to  was  this1 — 

Do  you  remember  in  1914,  before  the  war,  the  Arms  Proclamation? — Yes. 

As  an  officer  of  the  Constabulary  were  you  concerned  in  acting  under  it  for  a 
while?— Yes. 

Prior  to  that  had  there  been  considerable  importation  of  arms? — Yes. 

Was  it  in  consequence  of  what  happened  in  the  north  of  Ireland  that  the 
people  were  arming  so  far  south  as  Tralee?— I  could  not  say  that. 

Did  they,  at  all  events,  purport  to  be  arming? — They  did. 

As  against  the  armed  persons  in  the  north  of  Ireland  ? — Yes. 

Were  they  bearing  arms  openly? — They  were. 

Without  interference  by  the  public  authorities? — Yes. 

And  actually  on  the  outbreak  of  war  was  the  proclamation  against  the 
importation  of  arms  withdrawn  on  the  16th  August? — Yes,  that  is  so. 

And  your  directions,  even  so  far  as  they  went  to  interfere  with  the  importation 
of  arms,  ceased  on  the  16th  August  on  the  withdrawal  of  the  proclamation  for  the 
time  being? — Yes. 

And  the  arming  of  the  population  went  on  then  unrestricted  for  a  while  ? — Yes. 

And  the  parade  of  arms  uninterfered  with  by  any  authority? — Yes. 

People  drilling? — Yes. 

Marching  ? — Yes. 

Skirmishing  through  the  country? — Yes. 

Without  any  action  taken  on  behalf  of  the  police?  This  arming,  of  course, 
commenced  before  the  war,  did  it  not? — Yes  it  did. 

It  commenced  some  time  in  1913,  in  the  south,  did  it  not? — Yes. 

1  P.  49. 

153 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Mr.  Sullivan 

It  had  commenced  earlier  in  the  north? — Yes. 

Was  there  a  great  deal  of  excitement  in  the  south  with  regard  to  the  reports  of 
what  was  going  on  in  the  north  of  Ireland? — There  was. 

I  suppose  at  the  police  barracks,  even  in  Ardfert,  they  read  the  papers? — Yes. 

Then  the  papers  are  referred  to. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — If  you  look  at  the  question  I  put,  I  think 
it  brings  home  the  point  of  my  intervention  now.  I  put  to  you  the 
question  after  you  had  gone  through  this  matter :  "  Are  you  speaking  of 
"  before  or  after  the  war?  "  and  your  answer  was,  "  Before  the  war." 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — That  is  iso  with  regard  to  that  evidence. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — No  doubt  you  stated  it  quite  rightly.  You 
have  stated  the  effect  of  the  facts  before  the  war,  and  there  has  been  no 
intervention,  but  what  you  are  dealing  with  now  apparently  is  the  period 
some  time  after  the  war;  the  period  with  which  we  have  to  deal  is  1915; 
that  is  what  we  are  dealing  with. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — It  is  this  question.1 

In  that  state  of  affairs,  having  neither  police  nor  military  competent  to  protect 
one,  it  was  left  to  people  in  Ireland  to  protect  themselves ;  is  not  that  the  truth  of 
it? — Generally  speaking  it  is. 

Generally  speaking  that  was  the  truth  of  it?  Now,  as  you  say,  when  the  war 
broke  out  the  Arms  Proclamation  was  withdrawn  and  the  arming  went  on  as 
before?— Yes. 

And  continued  right  up  to  last  month? — Yes. 

Except  so  far  as  hampered  by  the  Defence  of  the  Realm  Regulations  ? — Yes. 

I  was  under  the  impression  I  was  referring  to  that.  I  am  sorry  if 
I  transgressed,  and  regret  that  the  rein  was  not  applied  to  it. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  felt  so  anxious*  not  to  intervene  when  you 
were  making  your  speech,  and,  of  course,  doing  the  best  you  could  for 
your  client,  but  you  were  dealing  with  matters  which  not  only  were  not 
stated  in  evidence — but  with  regard  to  which  I  will  say  nothing  more. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  pass  from  that  at  once.  If  I  have  been  carried  away 
too  far,  I  am  exceedingly  sorry.  All  that  I  was  trying  to  lay  the  foundation 
for  was  in  view  of  the  condition  of  affairs  existing  at  the  outbreak  of  the 
war,  to  ask  you  to  consider  what  then  might  be  the  explanation  after  the 
outbreak  of  the  war,  and  the  condition  at  the  close  of  the  war  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar,  because  we  are  all  agreed — I  mean  nearly  all  the 
witnesses  are  agreed — that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  frequently  referred  in 
Limburg  to  the  fact  that  the  war  was  coming  to  a  close.  When  the  war 
was  over  the  Irish  Brigade  was  to>  be  used  in  Ireland,  and  used  in  Ireland, 
one  witness  used  the  phrase,  to  secure  Home  Rule,  others  said  to  free 
Ireland,  others  said  to  secure  the  freedom  of  Ireland. 

I  suggest  to  you  the  inference  to  be  drawn  isi  that  the  Irish  Brigade 
moving  to  Ireland  after  the  war — it  was  recruited,  according  to  a  number 
of  these  witnesses,  in  connection  with  the  Volunteer  movement  in  Ireland — 
you  should  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  intention  expressed  by  Sir 
Roger  Casement  was  the  intention  of  using  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Ireland 
in  connection  with  the  Irish  Volunteer  movement,  which,  as  you 
heard,  had  been  recruiting  in  Ireland  before  the  war.  Now  is  that  a 
reasonable  suggestion?  Is  not  it  what  he  said?  What  other  explanation 
can  you  give  of  the  terms  that  he  used?  Under  what  circumstances  were 

1  P.  51. 
154 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


Irishmen  to  fight  in  Ireland,  under  Irish  officers  1  For  no  German  purpose. 
Whether  you  use  it  to  free  Ireland,  to  secure  Home  Rule,  or  for  any  other 
purpose  mentioned,  what  other  explanation  is  there,  except  it  was  in  con- 
nection, as  was  stated  in  Limburg  by  a  number  of  witnesses,  with  the 
Irish  Volunteer  movement?  I  intended  to  go  no  further  than  that,  and 
I  intended  to  test  whether  that  involved  any  of  the  charges  made  in  the 
present  case.  In  that  event  there  isi  no  military  aid  to  Germany;  none 
whatever.  However  much  Germany  might  like  to  see,  after  the  war,  or 
at  any  other  time,  a  precipitation  of  a  state  of  affairs  in  which  there 
should  be  armed  camps  in  any  part  of  His  Majesty's  dominions,  that  is  not 
the  view  put  forward  by  Sir  Roger  Casement  to  the  Irish  Brigade.  It  was 
not  to  please  Germany  that  he  sought  to  recruit.  He  purported  to 
recruit  them  in  order  to  serve  their  own  country.  Isi  there  any  other  way 
in  which  he  could  fulfil  his  pledge?  Where  else  could  he  use  them  in 
connection  with  the  Irish  Volunteer  movement  or  in  connection  with  any 
Home  Rule  controversy?  Where  else  could  he  use  them  for,  whatever  you 
call  it,  the  freedom  of  Ireland  or  of  freeing  Ireland?  In  Ireland  alone 
they  were  to  fight ;  under  Irish  officer®  they  were  to  fight.  The  documents 
are  perfectly  specific  on  that  point,  and,  accordingly,  I  do  most  earnestly 
impress  upon  your  consideration,  that  in  view  of  the  state  of  affairs  at 
the  commencement  of  the  war,  going  no  further  than  that,  is  there  not  a 
perfectly  proper  and  reasonable  explanation  of  what  it  was  desirable  to 
provide  for  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war?  The  matters  that  I  have  spoken 
of  had  occurred  since  Sir  Roger  Casement  left  the  Consular  Service.  They 
would  explain  the  position.  As  I  say,  those  matters  had  occurred  since 
Sir  Roger  Casement  left  the  Consular  Service.  [After  a,  pause.]  I 
regret,  my  lord,  to  say  that  I  have  completely  broken  down. 

The   LORD    CEIEF   JUSTICE — Then,  of  course,    we   will   adjourn   until 
to-morrow  morning. 

The  Court  adjourned. 


155 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 


Fourth   Day— Thursday,   29th  June,   1916. 

Mr.  ABTEMTJS  JONES — My  lords,  I  regret  to  say  that  my  learned  leader 
is  in  a  condition  this  morning  which  doe®  not  permit  of  his  appearance  in 
Court.  I  have  just  seen  him.  He  is  in  consultation  with  his  medical 
adviser,  and  the  effect  of  the  advice  is  that  he  must  not  go  on.  In  these 
circumstances  will  your  lordships  grant  me  the  indulgence  of  allowing  me 
to  conclude  his  speech  and  deal  with  the  points  he  has  not  quite  covered  1 

The  LORD  CEIEF  JUSTICE — Yes,  certainly.  I  am  sorry  Mr.  Sullivan  is 
not  able  to  be  here;  it  was  obvious  that  he  was  labouring  under  a  strain 
yesterday  afternoon.  Will  you  kindly  proceed  with  his  address? 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — If  your  lordship  pleases.  Gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  the  responsibility  of  defending  a  man  in  a  criminal  Court  is  always 
a  serious  responsibility  for  the  counsel  who  appear  for  him,  and  when  the 
charge  against  him  is  a  capital  charge,  and  is  one  which  involves  the  dread 
issue  of  life  or  death,  that  responsibility  becomes  still  greater  and  heavier. 
Rising  as  I  do  in  these  circumstances1  to  resume  the  speech  made  by  my 
learned  leader,  Mr.  Sullivan,  yesterday,  I  hope  that  you  will  grant  to  me 
the  same  measure  of  sympathetic  hearing,  at  any  rate,  which  you  have 
been  good  enough  to  give  him. 

Now,  let  me,  if  I  may,  resume  my  learned  leader's  argument  at  the 
point  where  he  left  off  yesterday.  Mr.  Sullivan  was  pointing  out  to 
you  that  the  evidence  called  by  the  prosecution  with  reference  to  these 
acts  of  high  treason  which  it  is  siaid  he  committed  in  Germany  was  quite 
consistent  with  an  entirely  different  view  of  the  case;  that  is  to  say, 
the  view  of  an  Irishman,  a  loyal  and  patriotic  Irishman,  who,  stirred  to 
the  depths  by  events,  of  which  there  is  evidence  in  this  case  already, 
which  had  taken  place  in  Ireland  in  1913,  had  in  the  midst  of  this  great 
war  gone  to  Germany,  not  for  the  purpose  of  helping  Germany  to  fight 
England,  but  for  the  purpose  of  forming  an  Irish  Brigade  to  strive  for 
something  they  had  a  right  to  strive  for,  the  protection  of  their  country- 
men if  they  were  coerced  or  tyrannised  by  armed  forces  in  Ireland  which 
were  not  controlled  by  the  Executive  Government.  I  suggest,  with  all 
respect  to  my  lord,  that  it  is  open  for  you  to  form  that  view  of  the  case  on 
the  evidence  as  it  istands.  Gentlemen,  let  me,  if  I  may,  answer  the 
question  which  was  addressed  to  you  by  the  learned  Attorney-General  in  his 
opening  speech.  He  commented,  as  he  had  a  right  to  do,  upon  the  dis- 
tinguished record  which  Sir  Roger  Casement  enjoyed  in  the  service  of  this 
great  Empire.  He  had  played  a  part,  as  the  Attorney-General  said,  in  con- 
solidating the  Empire  in  one  sense,  that  in  different  parts  of  the  Empire 
he  had  been  trying  to  do  his  best  in  the  responsible  position  he  occupied. 
In  the  year  1911  he  retired  on  a  pension,  which,  as  Sir  Roger  Casement  said, 
he  had  honourably  earned,  and  with  a  title,  which  it  was  not  in  his 
power  to  refuse,  which  his  Sovereign  conferred  upon  him.  As  the  learned 
Attorney-General  asked  yesterday,  what  had  happened  since  1911  to 
convert  that  loyal  and  dutiful  son  of  the  Empire  into  the  traitor  which  the 
Crown  wishes  you  to  believe  that  he  is?  What  had  happened?  That 
was  the  question  which  the  Attorney-General  asked,  and  I  promise  to  give 
the  learned  Attorney-General  his  answer  in  the  evidence  which  has  been 
156 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 


Mr.  Artemus  Jones 


already  given,  namely,  the  speeches  which  the  sergeant  of  police  has 
already  said  in  evidence  that  he  had  read,  read  in  the  south  of  Ireland,  and 
which,  as  he  said,  were  being  circulated  all  over  Ireland.  Let  me  read 
the  state  of  feeling  there  at  that  time — "  What  he  would  urge  upon  them 
"  was  that  they  should  go  forward  in  the  same  solemnity  as  that  with  which 
"  they  devoted  themselves  in  the  cause  of  Protestantism  when  they  signed 
"  the  covenant  twelve  months  ago.  Their  leaders  asked  them  to  run  no 
"  risk  and  to  do  no  deed  which  they  on  their  part  were  not  prepared  to 
"run  and  to  do." 

The  LOED  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Was  this  read  in  the  evidence?  There 
were  some  passages  that  were  read,  but  I  do  not  remember  that  part  of  it. 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — I  beg  your  lordship's  pardon;  your  lordship 
remembers  certain  passages  were  marked  in  ink. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE' — Some  parts  undoubtedly  were  read. 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — It  may  be  that  I  have  not  begun  at  the  right 
point.  The  part  I  did  read  out  was  the  part  coming  within  the  two 
black  lines,  which  were  marked  at  the  time  and  shown  to  the  witness,  if 
your  lordship  will  remember. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — As  I  recollect  the  evidence,  this  was  all  a 
little  irregular,  but,  of  course,  was  permitted ;  at  any  rate,  it  was  permitted 
by  us  for  the  defence,  but  the  witness  certainly  did  not  say  he  remembered 
seeing  those  newspapers  at  all.  What  he  did  say  was  that  he  remembered 
words  somewhat  to  the  effect  that  were  suggested  by  Mr.  Sullivan,  and  we 
allowed  those  passages  to  be  read.  I  think  if  you  are  going  to  read  other 
parts  of  the  speech  it  becomes  a  very  different  proceeding. 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — I  only  intended  to  read  those  passages  that 
appear  in  the  shorthand  notes.  The  mistake  I  made  was  in  picking  up 
the  newspaper  and  reading  the  passages  marked  in  black  ink.  I  read  it 
on  the  assumption  that  it  represented  all  that  appeared  in  the  shorthand 
notes,  Let  me  draw  your  lordship's  attention  to  the  passages. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  do  not  want  to  take  any  unnecessary 
objection,  but  I  should  like  references  to  be  made  to  the  answers  of  the 
witnesses  upon  which  this  argument  is  based.  It  is  a  strange  way  to 
prove  that  a  speech  was  made  by  asking  a  witness  in  a  criminal  case 
whether  he  read  a  report,  even  if  he  said  he  read  that  report.  My 
recollection  of  the  answer  is  that  the  only  answer  made  by  the  witness  was 
he  read  something  to  that  effect. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  how  I  understood  it,  and  that  is 
what  I  was  pointing  out  to  Mr.  Jones.  Strictly,  it  was  irregular,  but 
it  was  a  latitude  allowed  to  the  defence  because  they  might  have  been  in  a 
difficulty  in  getting  strict  proof ;  and  it  was  not  objected  to  by  the  Crown, 
for  that  reason  no  doubt.  Therefore  I  think  it  is  that  we  must  confine 
it  to  the  precise  questions  and  answers  which  were  obtained.  At  most  it 
comes  to  this,  that  speeches  to  that  effect  were  issued ;  that  is  all. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — The  question  arises,  if  the  only  answer  was 
that  a  speech  to  that  effect  was  made,  how  far  that  justifies  the  reading  of 
what  purports  to  be  a  newspaper  report  as  showing  exactly  what  was  said 
which  was  never  read  out  to  the  witness  at  all. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — All  that  I  think  is  properly  admissible  is  what 
Mr.  Artemus  Jones  is  proposing  to  read,  the  precise  words  put  to  the 
witness  in  the  question  and  accepted  by  him  as  words  to  that  effect. 

157 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Mr.  Artemus  Jones 


Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES  —  I  ain  obliged  to  your  lordship.  One  eminent 
judge  once  observed  that  a  thing  most  notorious  outside  a  Court  of  law 
was  the  thing  most  difficult  to  prove  inside  a  Court  of  law.  I  only  propose 
now  to  read  to  you  the  passages  in  which  Mr.  Sullivan  questioned  the 
police  sergeant  as  to  whether  he  saw  statements  there  being  made  which, 
as  the  sergeant  said,  were  influencing  the  minds  of  peasantry  and  people 
in  other  parts  of  Ireland. 

I  will  read  the  whole  of  the  cross-examination  to  meet  the  observation 
properly  made  by  the  Attorney-General1  — 

What  is  your  headquarters?  —  Tralee. 

How  long  are  you  stationed  in  Tralee?  —  Five  years. 

I  suppose  you  read  the  papers  ?  —  Sometimes. 

What  paper  do  you  read  ?  —  Anything  I  can  get  hold  of  —  the  Irish  Times,  the 
Independent. 

The  Irish  Times  is  the  one  that  you  take  for  preference,  I  think?  —  Yes. 

I  want  to  know  whether  you  read  the  Irish  Times  of  July  14th,  1913.  I  can 
give  you  a  copy  to  look  at.  (Newspaper  handed  to  witness)?  —  I  could  not  tell  you. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE  —  I  am  not  sure  you  quite  appreciated  what  I 
said;  you  need  not  trouble  to  read  all  the  introductory  passage.  I  think 
you  are  entitled,  and  I  so  stated,  to  read  the  particular  passages  read  to 
the  Court  from  the  newspapers  as  they  appear  here. 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES  —  If  your  lordship  pleases.2 

"We  can  rely  not  only  on  thousands  but  tens  of  thousands  of  people  in  England 
"who  are  prepared  to  assist  us."  There  was  any  amount  of  that  sort  of  speaking 
going  on  ?  —  In  the  papers. 

Some  of  them  were  perhaps  more  definite.  Then  in  the  very  last  paragraph  of  the 
meeting  that  is  reported  there,  do  you  see  a  passage  beginning  —  "  In  England  they  were 
prepared  to  stand  "  ?  —  Who  is  speaking  ;  whose  speech  is  it  ? 

I  will  give  you  the  name  if  you  wish,  but  I  am  a  little  diffident  about  it.  It  is 
the  very  last  paragraph  of  the  eloquent  speech  that  closed  the  meeting  except  the 
vote  of  thanks  ?  —  There  are  so  many  meetings  in  different  parts  of  Ireland,  and  they 
are  mixed  up  together. 

I  will  mark  the  passage  for  you  if  you  wish  it.  (Counsel  having  marked  the 
passage.)  That  is  the  passage  I  want  you  to  look  at.  Did  you  read  passages  of 
this  kind  circulating  in  your  district?  "They  would  be  right  in  resisting  it  by  force, 
"and  in  their  determination  to  resist  it  they  would  have  the  sympathy  and  support 
"of  thousands  of  people  in  England,  and  amongst  those  thousands  he  had  the 
"greatest  pleasure  in  reckoning  himself."  You  remember  speeches  to  that  effect 
at  all  events?  —  Either  speeches  or  comment  to  that  effect. 

They   were  circulated  broadcast  through  the  country  ?  —  No  doubt. 

Then  the  other  passage  is  read  in  another  question3  — 

"He  could  add  this  as  a  word  of  partial  assurance,  that  they  had  many  powerful 
friends  in  England  who  thought  as  he  did.  It  was  all  very  well  to  talk  of  the 
great  forces  which  were  marshalled  behind  the  Government,  and  which  could  be 
used  in  the  event  of  extreme  necessity  in  Ulster.  The  reply  to  that  was  that  the 
forces  of  the  Crown  were  the  servants  of  the  nation,  and  at  least  one  half  of  the 
nation  believed  that  the  employment  of  this  force  would  be  a  monstrous  crime." 

Then  follows  this  passage  in  the  next  question  — 

"If  the  resolution  of  Ulster  were  put  to  the  test,  they  would  find  those  in 
"  England  who  had  felt  it  their  duty  to  encourage  the  men  of  Ulster  in  their  attitude, 
"and  who  would  be  prepared  to  prove  by  their  deeds  that  when  they  said  that  Ulster 
was  right  they  meant  Ulster  was  right,  and  who  would  be  prepared  to  share  the  risk.' 


" 


1  P.  55.         2  P.  56.        3  P.  57. 
158 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 


Mr.  Artemus  Jones 


Then  I  propose  to  read  from  the  cross-examination  of  Sergeant 
Hearn1 — 

Do  you  remember  in  1914,  before  the  war,  the  Arms  Proclamation? — Yes. 

As  an  officer  of  the  constabulary,  were  you  concerned  in  acting  under  it  for  a 
while?— Yes. 

Prior  to  that,  had  there  been  considerable  importation  of  arms? — Yes. 

As  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  in  the  country,  was  there  prior  to  that  a 
very  large  importation  of  arms  in  the  north  of  Ireland  ?— Yes. 

Was  it  in  consequence  of  what  happened  in  the  north  of  Ireland  that  the 
people  were  arming  so  far  south  as  Tralee? — I  could  not  say  that. 

Did  they  at  all  events  purport  to  be  arming?— They  did. 

As  against  the  armed  persons  in  the  north  of  Ireland? — Yes. 

Were  they  bearing  arms  openly? — They  were. 

Without  interference  by  the  public  authorities? — Yes. 

And  actually  on  the  outbreak  of  war  was  the  proclamation  against  the  import- 
ation of  arms  withdrawn  on  the  16th  August  ? — Yes,  that  is  so. 

And  your  directions,  even  so  far  as  they  went  to  interfere  with  the  importation 
of  arms  ceased  on  the  16th  August,  on  the  withdrawal  of  the  Proclamation  for  the 
time  being? — Yes. 

And  the  arming  of  the  population  went  on  then  unrestricted  for  a  while? — Yes. 

And  the  parade  of  arms  uninterfered  with  by  any  authority? — Yes. 

People  drilling' — Yes. 

Marching  ?— Yes. 

Skirmishing  through  the  country? — Yes. 

Without  any  action  taken  on  behalf  of  the  police  ?  This  arming  of  course 
commenced  before  the  war,  did  it  not? — Yes,  it  did. 

It  commenced  some  time  in  1913,  in  the  south,  did  it  not? — Yes. 

It  had  commenced  earlier  in  the  north? — Yes. 

In  re-examination  by  the  Solicitor-General  certain  questions  were  put. 
So  much  for  these  passages.  Now,  I  should  like  to  read  one  passage  in 
the  evidence  of  Britten,  but  before  I  do  that  I  should  like  to  read  the 
statement  made  by  the  witness,  that  they  went  on  arming  both  against  the 
armed  forces  in  Ulster  and  against  conscription. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Yes,  partly  against  one  and  partly  against 
the  other;  it  was  in  re-examination  by  the  Solicitor-General.2 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — Yes. 

By  the  SOLICITOR-GENERAL — What  effect  would  the  landing  of  a  cargo,  I  do  not 
say  three  pistols,  but  a  cargo  of  arms  and  ammunition,  in  that  country  have  had 
upon  the  population? — It  would  have  had  a  very  grave  effect. 

It  has  been  put  to  you  that  the  people  were  arming  only  against  the  Ulster- 
men  from  the  north,  is  that  so? — Partly  against  Ulster  and  partly  against 
conscription. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  troubled  you  with  those  passages  for  the  purpose 
of  emphasising  the  fact  that  the  state  of  things  which,  according  to  the 
police  themselves,  prevailed  in  Ireland  prior  to  the  war  must  have  gone 
on  subsequently,  because  the  reference  to  conscription,  you  know,  stamps  it 
as  being  the  date  when  that  question  came  before  Parliament  and  before 
the  public.  I  think  that  is  a  perfectly  legitimate  observation  to  make, 
and  therefore  I  am  entitled,  I  think,  to  make  this  point.  Given  a  com- 
munity such  as  you  have  in  Ireland,  with  deep  and  bitter  memories  of 
•what  they  consider  to  be  wrongs,  having  by  their  constitutional  movement 
secured  their  political  rights,  then  being  menaced  on  the  one  hand  by 
citizens  in  the  same  island,  Ireland,  marching  through  the  land  prepared 
to  resist  lawful  authority,  what  effect  could  that  have  upon  the  minds  of 

*P.  49.        2P.  52. 

159 


Sir  Roger  Casement, 


[p.  Artemus  Jones 


those  peasantry  and  others  down  in  the  south  of  Ireland?  Gentlemen,  it 
is  important  for  you  to  bear  that  fact  in  mind,  because  it  was  only  then 
that  this  loyal  servant  of  the  Empire,  as  the  Attorney-General  called  him, 
up  till  1911,  first  became  connected  with  anything  in  the  nature  of  arms; 
and  if  the  learned  Attorney-General  wants  a  complete  answer  to  the 
question  which  he  put,  and  properly  put,  in  his  opening  speech,  I  suggest 
to  him  that  he  will  find  the  answer  in  these  newspaper  extracts1  that  have 
been  read  out,  and,  above  all,  in  the  fact  which  is  now,  I  think,  beyond 
dispute,  that  it  was  in  that  way  Sir  Roger  Casement  started  the  Irish 
National  Volunteer  movement.  Gentlemen,  you  must  bear  that  circum- 
stance in  mind,  because,  you  know,  there  are  two  views,  as  I  suggested 
before,  for  you  to  take  on  the  evidence  as  it  stands.  Prima  facie  those 
in  Court  listening  to  the  impressive  speech  of  the  Attorney-General  might 
have  thought  this  was  a  case  which  was  absolutely  undefended.  They 
may  have  thought  because  of  this,  probably  the  most  momentous  crisis 
through  which  this  island  has  passed,  and  when  the  fields  of  Europe  are 
reddened  with  the  blood  of  some  of  the  best  men  in  the  world,  that  it 
does  seem  at  first  sight  an  outrage  that  a  man  who  served  the  Empire 
for  so  long  should  go  to  the  enemy  country  and  commit  high  treason  as 
against  his  own  Sovereign.  That  was  one  picture  which  the  learned 
Attorney-General  drew ;  but  it  is  your  duty,  when  you  are  sitting  in  that 
box  a®  citizens  of  this  land,  to  inquire  into  what  the  facts  of  the  case 
are  and  into  what  the  circumstances  of  the  case  are.  It  is  open  for  you 
to  form  your  own  view  as  to  what  this  man's  motive  and  what  this  man's 
intention  were  when  he  is  alleged  to  have  committed  these  acts. 

Now,  let  me  bring  you,  if  I  may,  to  the  crucial  question  you  have 
got  to  determine  when  you  retire  to  consider  your  verdict.  He  is  charged 
with  committing  high  treason  by  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  in 
Germany,  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's  enemies.  Gentlemen, 
you  are  dealing  with  the  language  of  a  statute  passed  almost  six  hundred 
years  ago,  and  the  meaning  of  those  words  "  aid  and  comfort"  at  that 
time,  I  suggest  to  you,  was  something  rather  different  from  the  words 
"  aid  and  comfort "  as  they  are  used  to-day.  Aiding  and  comforting  the 
enemy  means  supplying  them  with  information  or  with  forces  or  with 
material  for  the  purpose  of  levying  war  against  the  King,  and  you  have  to  be 
satisfied  in  your  own  mind  that  Sir  Roger  Casement's  intention  when  h© 
was  in  Germany  was  to  use  the  Irish  Brigade  for  the  purpovse  of  fighting 
Germany's  battles  as  against  England. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  words  of  the  statute,  Mr.  Jones,  are,  of 
course,  to  be  interpreted  according  to  law,  and  therefore  they  are  not  for 
the  jury,  but  for  us.  I  only  interpose  because  I  want  to  tell  you  the 
meaning  that  we  attribute  to  tnose  words,  and  upon  which  I  shall  direct  the 
jury,  so  that  you  may  address  your  mind  to  it.  I  should  not  adopt  the 
language  which  you  used  just  now,  but  I  shall  tell  the  jury  that  "  giving 
"aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's  enemies"  means  assisting  the  King's 
enemies  in  the  war  with  this  country,  and  that  any  act  which  strengthens 
or  tends  to  strengthen  the  enemy  in  the  conduct  of  the  war  against  us 
would  be  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's  enemies,  and  that  any  act 
which  weakens  or  tends  to  weaken  the  power  of  this  country  to  resist  or  to 
attack  the  enemy  equally  is  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's  enemies. 
That  is  the  direction  of  law  that  I  intend  to  give. 
160 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 


HP.  Artemus  Jones 


Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — I  am  much  obliged  to  your  lordship.  Gentle- 
men, you  have  to  be  satisfied,  bearing  in  mind,  of  course,  the  terms  in 
which  my  lord  will  address  you  when  it  comes  to  his  part  of  dealing  with 
the  case,  and  you  will  remember  the  terms  of  what  he  said,  and  also 
remember  the  essence  of  the  offence  is  that  it  was  Sir  Roger  Casement's 
intention  in  going  to  Germany.  Gentlemen,  just  consider  the  position. 
Here  he  was  in  Cork,  according  to  the  evidence,  in  the  years  1913  and 
1914,  certainly  before  the  war  broke  out,  addressing  a  meeting  there,  as 
one  of  the  witnesses  said,  with  regard  to  the  Irish  National  Volunteer 
movement.  You  remember  what  I  am  referring  to,  because  the  police 
witness  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  name  of  Sir  Edward  Carson  was 
mentioned,  and  that  brought  the  meeting  to  an  end.  That  was  the  move- 
ment with  which  he  became  associated.  And  now  mark  this,  you  and  I 
may  hold  our  own  views  as  to  the  propriety  of  what  he  did  then  before 
the  outbreak  of  war.  With  whom  the  responsibility  lies  for  the  terrible 
state  of  things  in  Ireland,  when  the  executive  of  the  realm  failed  to  deal 
with  that  which  they  ought  to  have  dealt  with,  this  menace  of  armed 
resistance  to  lawful  authority,  whoever  may  have  been  responsible  for 
that  I  care  not,  but  the  fact  remains,  the  witnesses  have  already  proved 
that  that  state  of  things  had  produced  in  the  mind  of  the  Iri&h  peasantry 
a  genuine  fear  that  they  might  have  to  take  that  step  in  case  of  being 
attacked  by  some  armed  force  in  Ireland.  That  was  Sir  Roger  Casement's 
position  before  the  war  broke  out.  After  the  war  broke  out  what 
happens?  He  goes  to  Germany,  as  we  know,  and  addresses  these  Irish 
prisoners  of  war  and  forms  the  Irish  Brigade.  What  were  the  first  words 
that  he  used  to  them?  Mr.  Sullivan  yesterday  dealt  exhaustively  with 
the  witness  who  said  he  urged  them  to  fight  against  Russia,  and  so  on. 
I  do  not  think  you  will  pay  much  attention  to  the  evidence  of  that 
witness.  All  the  other  soldiers  were  agreed  that  he  made  one  object 
clear  to  them,  that  they  would  go  to  Ireland  to  fight  for  Ireland  alone, 
not  for  any  purpose  of  Germany,  but  for  Ireland  alone,  after  the  war  was 
over  or  after  a  triumph  at  sea  had  been  won.  I  suggest  to  you,  and  I  do 
it  in  all  earnestness,  that  that  supplies  the  keynote  to  the  motive  which 
actuated  this  man  in  the  course  he  took. 

The  Crown  has  to  satisfy  you  by  evidence,  not  by  surmise,  not  by 
suggestion,  not  by  insinuation,  but  by  evidence  and  facts  proved  to  your 
satisfaction,  that  when  he  did  this  thing  in  Germany  he  did  it  acting  from 
a  motive  of  desiring  to  strengthen,  to  adopt  the  language  of  my  lord,  or 
to  tend  to  strengthen,  the  position  of  Germany  in  her  war  against  England. 

Now,  let  me,  if  I  may,  deal  with  one  point  upon  which  no  doubt 
the  Crown  will  lay  a  good  deal  of  emphasis.  I  ask  you  to  form  this 
opinion  upon  the  evidence  as  it  stands,  that  Sir  Roger  Casement's  object 
when  he  addressed  these  prisoners  of  war  in  Germany  was  precisely  the 
same  object  that  he  had  in  mind  when,  long  before  the  war  broke  out,  he 
addressed  that  meeting  in  Cork  to  form  the  National  Volunteer  movement. 
I  have  no  doubt  what  the  Crown  may  suggest  in  answer  to  that — they 
will  point  to  what  they  consider  to  be  a  very  damning  piece  of  evidence 
in  the  case,  namely,  the  code.  Gentlemen,  let  me  deal,  if  I  may,  with 
that.  According  to  the  evidence  called  by  the  prosecution  there  was  a 
German  vessel  somewhere  near  the  coast  of  Ireland  then.  I  suggest  to 
M  161 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Mr.  Artemus  Jones 


you  that  that  code  is  quite  consistent  with  its  being  used  with  that  vessel 
for  the  purpose  of  landing  arms.  Gentlemen,  that  was  a  wrong  thing  to 
do,  it  may  have  been  a  wicked  thing  to  do,  but  that  is  irrelevant  to  the 
charge  that  you  have  to  consider,  which  is  high  treason.  That  is  im- 
porting into  Ireland  arms,  which  is  made  an  offence  by  the  Defence  of  the 
Realm  Act,  and  the  proper  proceeding  against  Sir  Roger  Casement  for  that 
act  would  be  a  charge  framed  under  the  Defence  of  the  Realm  Act.  The 
point  I  make  on  that  is  that  that  is  not  high  treason  or  adhering  to  the 
enemie'8  of  the  King  within  the  Empire  of  Germany.  Gentlemen,  that  is 
an  important  point  I  suggest  to  you  for  you  to  bear  in  mind,  because  it 
is  a  sort  of  evidence,  you  know,  which  sometimes  misleads  a  jury  into 
returning  wrong  verdicts.  I  suggest  that  that  circumstance  alone  is  a 
matter  which  might  have  formed  the  subject  of  a  charge  under  the  Defence 
of  the  Realm  Act,  a  charge  against  him  of  being  a  rebel;  but,  gentlemen, 
that  is  not  treason.  What  the  Crown  have  to  satisfy  you  upon  is  that  what 
he  did  in  Germany  was  treason  in  the  sense  that  it  was  designed,  and 
designed  by  him,  to  strengthen  the  forces  of  Germany  as  against  England. 
I  suggest  to  you  with  all  respect  there  is  no  such  evidence.  I  suggest  upon 
the  evidence  called  by  the  prosecution,  when  you  consider  the  light  that 
it  throws  upon  the  man's  character  and  upon  his  motive,  that  it  is  open 
for  you  to  form  the  view  that  the  object  with  which  he  did  this  act  in 
Germany  was  exactly  the  same  object  as  he  had  when  he  addressed  that 
meeting  in  Cork  in  1914.  It  is  open  for  you  to  form  a  view  of  the  case 
upon  the  evidence  which  would  entitle  you  to  return  a  verdict  of  not  guilty 
in  this  case.  If  you  are  satisfied  that  what  he  did  in  Germany  was  not 
intended  by  him  to  aid  and  strengthen  Germany  as  against  England,  if 
you  are  satisfied  that  the  object  with  which  he  did  these  things  in  Germany, 
and  what  he  did  do  in  fact,  was  exactly  the  same  object  and  with  regard 
to  the  same  work  which  he  was  carrying  on  in  Ireland  before  the  war,  it  is 
open  for  you  to  return  a  verdict  of  not  guilty. 

Gentlemen,  whom  was  the  Irish  Brigade  formed  to  fight  for?  They 
did  not  leave  Germany  with  Sir  Roger  Casement;  they  were  left  behind, 
as  some  of  the  witnesses  have  referred  to.  Thy  did  not  come  over  to 
Ireland.  When  you  bear  that  fact  in  mind,  I  suggest  it  is  some  evidence 
on  which  you  can  act  at  any  rate  when  you  are  considering  your  verdict. 
That  is  a  question  I  suggest  to  you  respectfully  you  must  answer,  and  I 
suggest  also  that  the  verdict  you  give  must  be  an  answer  to  that  question. 
Whom  was  the  Irish  Brigade  intended  to  fight  for?  It  certainly  was  not 
Germany.  If  it  be  true,  as  the  evidence  shows  it  is,  that  there  wasi  in 
Ireland  a  number  of  people,  I  care  not  what  position  of  life  they  were  in, 
whether  peasants  or  anybody  higher,  who  really  thought  they  had  to  arm 
themselves  for  the  purpose  of  doing  that  which  the  lawful  and  constituted 
authority  of  the  realm  ought  to  have  given  them  for  the  protection  of 
themselves,  if  that  be  the  case,  it  is  open  for  you,  as  I  said,  to  return  a 
verdict  of  not  guilty  in  this  case. 

I  am  not  going  to  make  any  appeal  to  you  on  behalf  of  the  prisoner 
which  is  founded  upon  anything  except  those  considerations  that  the  law 
allows.  I  am  not  going  to  address  you  upon  the  terrible  responsibility 
that  rests  upon  you  in  considering  this  case.  It  is,  as  I  said  before,  a  matter 
of  life  and  death,  and  it  would  ill  become  me  to  dwell  upon  that  aspect 
162 


Speech  for  Prisoner. 


'.  Artemus  Jones 


of  the  matter  as  far  as  you  are  concerned.  I  spoke  just  now  of  the  responsi- 
bility which  devolves  upon  counsel  who  are  pleading  for  the  life  of  a  fellow- 
creature.  That  responsibility  is  small  compared  with  your  responsibility. 
Each  one  of  you  must  be  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  Crown 
have  made  out  their  case.  The  law  demands),  as  the  Attorney- General 
said,  a  forfeit;  but  that  is  not  all  the  law  demands.  That  man  has  a  right 
to  demand  from  you  the  same  care  and  scrutiny  in  weighing  the  evidence 
as  any  one  of  you  would  expect  to  get  were  you  standing  in  that  dock. 
It  is  said  that  life  is  a  comedy  to  those  who  look  on,  and  it  is  a  tragedy 
to  those  who  feel.  This  trial  may  mean  a  tragedy  to  the  prisoner  on  account 
of  the  terrible  responsibility  which  rests  upon  your  shoulders.  Each  one  of 
you  must  be  satisfied,  and  satisfied  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that  the 
Crown  have  made  out  their  case.  I  am  not  going  to  addressi  any  appeal 
to  you  based  upon  sympathy  or  upon  anything  like  an  emotional  plea  in 
the  way  of  mercy.  The  ancient  and  valiant  race  from  which  this  man 
springs  does  not  produce  the  type  of  man  who  shrinks  from  death  for  the 
sake  of  his  country.  The  history  of  Ireland  contains  many  melancholy  and 
sad  chapters,  and  not  the  least  sad  is  the  chapter  which  tells  and  speaks 
so  eloquently  of  so  many  mistaken  sons  of  that  unfortunate  country  who 
have  gone  to  the  scaffold,  as  they  think,  for  the  sake  of  their  native  land. 
I  am  not  going  to  base  any  appeal  to  you  upon  emotions.  If  the  Crown 
have  made  out  their  case,  it  is  your  duty  as  lawful  citizens  to  return  a 
verdict  of  guilty;  but  I  claim  this1,  that  the  law  requires  that  the  Crown 
should  prove  their  case,  and  prove  it  up  to  the  hilt,  and  you  must  with  sure 
judgment  and  with  clean  consciences  consider  if  you  be  satisfied  upon  that 
point ;  and  if  you  do  that,  if  you  approach  the  case  in  that  spirit  and  apply 
that  test  to  it,  dark  and  heavy  as  the  case  may  be  as  far  as  the  defence  is 
concerned,  I  do  suggest  to  you  that  there  is  a  way  open  to  you  to  return 
a  verdict  which  would  be  none  the  less  just  because  it  is  humane. 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — May  it  please  your  lordships,  gentlemen  of 
the  jury — The  case  for  the  defence  here  has  been  presented  to  you,  in  the 
main  by  Serjeant  Sullivan,  with  an  ability  and  propriety  and  an  eloquence 
which  his  distinguished  career  at  the  Irish  bar  entitled  us  to  expect  at  his 
hands,  and  I,  as  all  of  us,  most  greatly  regret  the  indisposition  which 
at  the  last  moment  has  deprived  the  prisoner  of  the  advantage  of  his 
closing  sentences,  though  not,  I  am  glad  to  recall,  of  the  main  argument 
upon  which  he  relied. 

Gentlemen,  my  learned  friend  who  has  just  sat  down  has  made  an 
observation  with  which  I  entirely  concur.  He  told  you  that  you  must 
demand  of  the  Crown  in  this  case  and  at  the  conclusion  of  this  case  that 
it  shall  have  proved  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  the  charges  which  it  has 
made  against  the  prisoner.  I  accept  and  I  repeat  the  observation.  It 
is  the  duty  of  the  Crown  to  prove  conclusively,  and  so  that  no  doubt  can 
linger  in  the  mind  of  any  man  amongst  your  number,  that  the  prisoner 
has  been  guilty  of  these  acts  for  which  the  Crown  arraigns  him  to-day. 

163 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 

Attorney-General 

It  will  be  my  duty,  I  hope  not  at  length,  to  satisfy  you  that  at  every  stage 
of  this  case  the  Crown  has  proved  every  material  statement  which  I  made 
to  you  when,  on  behalf  of  the  Crown,  I  opened  this  case  some  days  ago. 

It  is  proper  that  I  should  make  some  general  references  to  the  only 
defence  which  has  been  attempted  in  this  case  before  I  trouble,  as  I  fear 
I  must  trouble,  you  with  a  more  detailed  reference  to  the  evidence  that 
has  been  given.  Gentlemen,  when  I  opened  thi®  case  I  was  of  opinion,  and 
I  am  still  of  opinion,  that  I  opened  a  simple  and  intelligible  case, 
susceptible  of  a  very  clear  answer,  if  indeed  any  answer  could  be  made  to 
the  charges  which  it  outlined.  You  have  now  heard  counsel  for  the 
prisoner,  and  have  heard  the  questions  which  they  put  to  the  witnesses 
who  were  called  by  the  Crown,  and  you  have  heard  the  observations  by 
which  the  defence  has  been  made  in  the  speeches  of  learned  counsel. 
Let  me  summarise  to  you,  as  I  conceive  it,  what  the  nature  of  that 
defence,  now  that  we  know  it,  is.  I  understand  it  to  be  this — the  prisoner 
did  not  attempt  to  seduce  Irish  soldiers  from  their  admitted  allegiance 
to  the  King  in  order  that  they  might  assist  Germany,  he  did  not  attempt 
to  seduce  those  soldiers  from  their  allegiance  in  order  that  they  might 
fight  against  England ;  but  he  was  so  struck,  hisi  mind  was  so  affected  by 
the  growing  lawlessness  'in  Ireland,  by  the  constantly  increasing  accession 
of  military  equipment  and  strength  to  the  Volunteers  in  the  north  of 
Ireland,  that  with  the  object  of  establishing  an  equipoise,  to  become 
effective  after  the  war,  between  the  strength  of  the  Volunteers  in  the  north 
of  Ireland  and  the  (Strength  of  those  opposed  to  this  view  in  tKe  other  parts 
of  Ireland,  he  made  attempts  to  procure  men  under  the  oath  of  military 
allegiance  to  the  Sovereign  of  this  country,  to  pledge  themselves  that 
at  the  end  of  the  war  they  would  go  to  Ireland,  not  for  the  purpose  of 
assisting  Germany,  not  for  the  purpose  of  fighting  England,  but  for  the 
purpose,  as  I  have  said,  of  holding  themselves  as  a  balance  against  the 
military  power  of  the  Volunteers  of  the  north  of  Ireland,  which,  in  the 
view  of  the  prisoner,  had  attained  excessive  proportions.  Now,  you 
have  listened  to  the  speech,  you  have  heard  the  rhetoric,  and  I  make  no 
complaint  of  it,  by  which  that  speech  was  supported,  and  you  are  in  a  position 
to  judge  whether  in  a  few  sentences  I  have  not  given  you  the  whole  sub- 
stance of  the  defence.  It  is  a  very  simple  issue.  Whether,  even  if  every 
fact  in  it  was  proved,  it  would  be  a  good  reply  to  the  charges  made  by  the 
Crown  is  another  matter,  and  a  matter  on  which  for  the  moment  I  postpone 
discussion,  because  it  is  more  convenient,  and  it  would  be  a  course  more 
economical  of  your  time,  if  I  first  examine  into  this  question  whether  the 
evidence  of  what  the  prisoner  actually  did  supplies  the  slightest  support 
to  the  theory  so  elaborately  placed  before  you  to-day. 

Now,  consider  the  case  quite  shortly.  Consider  the  two  alternatives, 
and  then  I  will  call  your  attention  to  the  evidence,  and  you  can  choose 
between  those  alternatives.  The  case  that  is  presented  to  you  by  the  Crown 
is  this  short  case,  that  the  prisoner,  a  man  who,  as  you  know  well,  was 
long  in  the  service  of  thisi  country,  and  a  man  who  well  understood  public 
affairs,  that  this  man  on  the  outbreak  of  war,  the  greatest  struggle  in 
which  the  country  to  which  he  had  so  long  belonged  had  ever  been  engaged, 
went  to  the  country  of  our  principal  enemy,  that  he  found  there  captured 
soldiers  of  His  Majesty  the  King,  that  he  set  himself  then  and  there  to 
164 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

seduce  those  men  from  their  allegiance  with  the  object  of  using  them  in 
violation  of  their  military  duty  and  at  the  risk  of  their  lives  in  any 
enterprise  which  might  injure  the  country  to  which  they  owed  that  allegi- 
ance. That  is  the  charge  made  by  the  Crown,  and  a  very  specific  charge. 
The  answer  is  that  they  were  not  to  be  used  to  asisist  Germany  in  any 
way,  but  they  were  only  to  be  used  on  the  conclusion  of  the  war  for 
matters  concerned  with  the  internal  politics  of  Ireland.  Those  are  the 
two  cases.  Let  us  examine  them  in  the  light  of  the  evidence. 

First  of  all,  let  me  call  attention  to  an  eloquent  passage  in  the  speech 
of  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Sullivan,  in  which  you  may,  I  think,  find  some 
indication  that  even  he  was  conscious  of  some  of  the  weaknesses  of  the 
case  which  he  was  recommending  to  your  convictions.  He  said1 — 

Gentlemen,  what  are  you  to  do  when,  after  years  of  labour,  your  representatives 
may  hare  won  something  that  you  yearn  for  for  many  a  long  day,  won  it  under  the 
constitution,  had  it  guaranteed  by  the  King  and  the  Commons,  and  you  are  informed 
that  you  should  not  possess  it  because  those  that  disliked  it  were  arming  to  resist 
the  King  and  Commons  and  to  blow  the  statute  off  the  book  with  powder?  The 
civil  police  could  not  protect  you,  and  the  military  force  would  perhaps  prove 
inadequate  for  your  support.  You  may  lie  down  under  it,  but  if  you  are  men,  to 
arms  when  all  else  fails,  defend  yourself.  If  the  civil  government  will  not  protect 
you,  if  the  constabulary  cannot  secure  your  rights,  if  you  cannot  rely  upon  brigades, 
the  ultimate  resort  for  any  man  in  the  protection  of  his  constitutional  freedom  is  to 
stand  with  arms  in  his  hands,  and  if  a  civil  government  can  be  terrorised  into 
obtaining  his  rights,  try  if  his  attitude  will  not  inspire  them  with  sufficient  respect 
to  do  what  is  right  without  fear,  favour,  or  affection. 

Gentlemen,  I  read  that  passage  because  I  am  anxious  that  the  defence 
as  I  put  it  to  you  should  be  put,  not  in  language  of  my  own,  but  in  the 
very  language  used  by  my  learned  friend,  and  immediately  followed  in 
his  speech  by  this  observation,  "  That,  gentlemen,  is  the  case  that  I 
"  present  to  you  on  behalf  of  Sir  Roger  Casement;  that  is  the  explanation 
"  of  everything  that  he  has  done/'  What  is  contained  in  the  paragraph 
that  I  have  just  read  to  you?  I  will  summarise  it  again,  I  hope  with 
complete  accuracy.  It  means  this.  Ireland  had  obtained  Home  Rule, 
or  had  at  least  secured  the  result  that  the  Home  Rule  Bill  was  upon 
the  Statute  Book.  They  saw  arming  in  the  north  of  Ireland  great 
forces,  proclaiming  their  intention  of  resisting  it,  and  finding  that  the 
military  were  apparently  inadequate  for  the  support  of  those  who  desired 
the  Home  Rule  Bill  to  become  law,  they  judged  it  necessary  that 
Irishmen  should  adopt  the  ultimate  resort  in  the  protection  of  their  con- 
stitutional freedom  and  stand  with  arms  in  their  hands.  I  quote  that 
particular  sipeech  of  my  learned  friend,  because  I  desire  at  once  to  make 
this  observation  upon  it.  Had  the  acts  for  which  the  prisoner  stands 
arraigned  been  committed  before  the  war  took  place,  had  they  been  com- 
mitted at  the  time  when  the  acts  which  he  alleges  on  the  part  of  the  Ulster 
Volunteers  were  taking  place,  these  words  might  have  been  a  good  defence 
or  a  bad  defence,  but  they  would  at  least  have  had  great  relevance. 

I  do  not  desire,  and  I  hold  it  be  wholly  irrelevant,  to  go  into  old  and 
unhappy  controversies  that  have  ceased  to  maintain  any  contact  with  the 
march  of  events,  but  I  remind  you  of  this,  that  there  had  intervened 
one  circumstance  which  had  altered  the  whole  phase  of  Irish  politics, 

1P.  151. 

165 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Attorney-General 

and  my  learned  friend  in  the  very  next  paragraph,  to  which  I  will 
presently  draw  your  attention,  shows  that  he  realised  it  had  altered 
the  whole  phase  of  Irish  politics.  What  was  that  fact?  It  was  that 
the  greatest  military  power  which  the  world  has  ever  known  was  trying 
to  destroy  thisi  country  and  trying  to  make  an  end  of  this  Empire.  Since 
these  controversies  arose,  what  honest  citizen  was  thinking  or  talking 
of  whether  or  not  there  might  at  some  future  day  be  resistance  to  the 
Home  Rule  Bill?  From  the  moment  that  Germany  made  her  tiger 
spring  at  the  throat  of  Europe,  I  say  from  that  moment  the  past  was 
the  past  in  the  eyes  of  every  man  who  wished  well  to  England,  and  my 
learned  friend  knew  it;  he  was  oppressed  by  the  difficulty,  and  he  goes 
on  in  his  speech,  and  he  says  this1 — 

Gentlemen,  this  condition  of  affairs  had  indeed  been  reached  prior  to  this  war 
that  has  broken  out  with  the  Empire  of  Germany. 

Now,  listen  to  this,  showing  what  the  real  facts  were,  and  showing 
how  clearly  my  learned  friend  realised  them — 

There  was  indeed  an  understanding  and  a  convention  between  the  greater 
leaders  of  these  factions  arming  and  counter-arming,  that  for  a  while,  while  the 
danger  to  the  Empire  existed,  this  dreadful  state  of  affairs  should  be  put  an  end 
to ;  that,  in  the  meantime,  faith  has  been  kept,  let  us  all  thank  Providence,  for  it 
enabled  my  countrymen  in  the  service  of  Ireland,  for  they  are  serving  the  glorious 
traditions  of  their  own  land,  to  write  their  names  in  every  battlefield  in  Europe, 
a  thing  that  would  have  been  impossible  without  such  understanding.  Do  not 
imagine,  though  you  may  live  in  a  great  city  of  the  Empire,  that  you  can  sneer 
at  the  loyal  patriotism  of  these  men. 

Observe  the  remarkable  admission  made  in  those  words,  and,  indeed, 
a  necessary  admission  for  any  candid  and  reasonable  advocate.  My  learned 
friend  himself  reminds  you  there  that  on  the  outbreak  of  the  war  there 
was  an  understanding  and  a  convention  between  the  greater  leaders  of 
these  factions  that  while  the  danger  to  the  Empire  existed  this  dreadful 
state  of  things  should  be  put  an  end  to.  Then  my  learned  friend  points 
out,  and  quite  truly,  that  in  the  meantime 

Faith  has  been  kept,  let  us  all  thank  Providence,  for  it  enabled  my  countrymen 
in  the  service  of  Ireland  to  write  their  names  in  every  battlefield  in  Europe. 

So  that  we  have  it  admitted,  and  thie  is  the  case  of  my  learned 
friend  himself,  that  while  there  were  unhappy  controversies  and  profound 
antagonism  of  opinion,  acta  done  on  both  sides,  as  to  which  I  do  not  ask 
now  whether  the  one  was  right  or  the  other  wae  right,  for  the  inquiry  would 
be  long,  bitter,  and  irrelevant,  we  have  it  admitted  that  with  the  out- 
break of  this  war,  with  the  danger  to  the  Empire  which  the  outbreak 
of  this  war  involved,  there  was  an  arrangement  and  a  convention  between 
the  leadensi  of  these  factions  which  would  enable  Irish  soldiers  to  do  what 
Irish  soldiers  have  done  in  every  great  war  in  which  this  country  has 
been  engaged — write  their  names  with  their  swords  on  the  battlefields 
of  Europe. 

Yes,  gentlemen,  but  how  do  these  reflections  help  the  prisoner? 
How  do  these  reflections  support  what  and  what  alone  is  the  case  made  here 
before  you  on  the  prisoner's  behalf?  Old  controversies  and  dangers 
which  might  have  arisen  from  those  controversies  had  this  war  not 
broken  out.  The  outbreak  of  war,  the  swift  menace  to  everything  this 

JP.  152. 
166 


Closing   Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

country  possesses,  to  everything  that  our  ancestors  have  bequeathed  to  us 
in  our  long  history,  the  swift  menace  to  all  those  things,  I  eay,  the 
realisation  by  the  responsible  men  of  all  parties  in  Ireland  of  the  menace, 
required  that  these  controversies  should  be  composed  as  long  as  the  danger 
lasted.  Is  that  the  view  the  prisoner  took?  What  waa  the  quality  of 
the  prisoner's  acts?  At  the  very  moment  that  these  Irish  soldiers  who 
in  my  learned  friend's  eloquent  address  have  written  their  names  on  the 
battlefields  of  France,  in  that  glorious  retreat  which  marked  the  early 
dtys  of  the  war,  at  the  very  moment  when  they  had  been  taken  into  cap- 
tirity,  his  idea  of  observing  the  truce,  the  existence  of  which  has  been 
plainly  stated  to  you  by  my  learned  friend,  of  avoiding  the  danger  to  the 
Empire  of  raising  these  matters  as  long  as  the  war  lasts,  was  to  go  over  to 
Germany  under  circumstances  on  which  I  shall  say  more  in  a  moment,  and 
attempt  to  seduce  those  men  from  their  allegiance,  and  to  arrange  then 
and  there  that  at  some  period,  which  I  will  show  presently  was  not  the  end 
of  tie  war,  they  were  to  land  in  Ireland  in  order  to  evoke  there  once  again 
the  hideous  spectre  of  disunion,  disloyalty,  and  armed  insurrection.  My 
learned  friend  has  put  before  you,  ais  I  have  told  you,  a  suggestion  as  to 
the  proposal  that  the  prisoner  made  to  these  Irish  prisoners  of  war  from 
which  I  dissent  from  first  to  last.  He  has  told  you  that  what  the  prisoner 
said  to  these  Irish  eoldiers  at  Limburg  was  that  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
war  they  should  go  to  Ireland  in  order  to  fight  for  Ireland. 

Now,  I  have  an  observation  to  make  to  you  at  the  very  outset  before 
I  challenge  and  test  that  claim,  and  the  observation  I  wish  to  make  to  you 
is  this — I  shall  put  it  in  the  form  of  a  question.  I  have  already  asked 
that  question  in  this  case  and  received  no  answer  to  it ;  the  question  can  be 
put  thus  shortly — Why  did  the  prisoner  ever  go  to  Germany  at  all  1  That  is 
the  first  question,  and  I  follow  it  by  a  second — How  did  he  get  to  Germany? 
What  was  the  nature  of  the  arrangement  and  of  the  assurance  that  was 
given  to  him  before  he  went  to  Germany?  How  was  it  that  when  his 
country  was  at  war  with  Germany,  when  these  Irish  soldiers  on  the 
field  of  battle  had  just  been  made  prisoners  by  the  German  Army,  that  we 
find  him  for  months  a  free  man  in  Germany,  moving  without  restriction  in 
whatsoever  part  of  Germany  those  Irish  soldiers  were  confined,  able,  without 
control  or  interference,  to  go  amongst  them  and  attempt  to  seduce  them? 
Why  in  this  view  of  the  case  did  he  go  to  Germany  at  all  ?  What  suggested 
motive  is  there?  Gentlemen,  it  is  not  through  inadvertence,  I  apprehend, 
that  no  answer  has  been  given  to  that  question  by  my  learned  friends, 
because  when  I  opened  this  case  to  you  I  tell  you  plainly  it  struck  me 
this  question  was  the  crux  of  the  whole  matter  of  the  prisoner's  activities. 
Let  me  remind  you  of  what  I  said,  and  how  pointedly  I  said  it  when  I 
opened  this  case  to  you.  I  said  this  very  deliberately,  "  If  it  be  possible 
"  to  give  an  explanation  of  the  original  journey  of  the  prisoner  to 
"  Germany  which  is  consistent  with  the  duty  which  he  owed,  and  which 
"he  has  so  recently  professed  to  his  Sovereign  and  to  his  country,  I  hope 
' '  that  this  explanation  will  be  put  forward  by  the  very  experienced  counsel 
"  by  whom  he  has  the  advantage  of  being  defended." 

The  question  that  I  asked,  as  I  then  said,  deliberately  and  pointedly, 
has  never  been  answered.  Why  has  it  never  been  answered?  I  can  tell 
you.  It  has  never  been  answered  because  no  answer  to  that  question  could 

167 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Attorney-Gen  eral 

be  given  which  is  consistent  with  the  integrity  of  the  prisoner.  Why  did 
he  go  to  Germany?  His  case  made  before  you  and  through  the  lips  of 
his  counsel  is  that  he  went  there  to  make  sure  there  would  be  some  men 
who  would  be  strong  enough  to  balance  the  Volunteers  in  the  north  of 
Ireland  after  the  war.  Where  do  you  think  would  be  the  place  in  which 
his  efforts  might  be  most  fruitful  if  that  really  was  his  object? 
Do  not  you  think  that  if  that  really  was  his  object  he  might  possibly 
have  stayed  in  Ireland  where  he  would  still  have  been  in  ths 
King's  dominions?  Why  go  to  Germany?  Why  go  and  corrupt  other 
men,  to  make  them  in  breach  of  their  duty  incur  grave  penalties? 
Why  go  there?  How  arrange  with  that  Government  which  gives  very 
little  for  nothing?  How  arrange  with  that  Government  that  as  the  Irish 
prisoners  were  taken  they  should  be  addressed  by  him?  How  was  all  fhis 
arranged,  on  what  terms,  and  in  what  documents  were  those  terms  conveyed? 
Gentlemen,  if  we  knew  the  full  story  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
this  man  went  to  Germany,  if  we  knew  what  negotiations  had  taken  place 
and  what  safeguards  were  given,  what  plans  were  made,  perhaps  this- 
defence  would  be  even  more  difficult  than  it  is  to-day. 

Now,  let  me,  as  I  promised  you  I  would,  show  you  in  a  moment  how 
wholly  inconsistent  the  evidence  given  by  the  Irish  witnesses  is  with  the 
case  put  forward  to-day.  I  will  follow  them  much  in  the  same  order  as 
my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Sullivan,  followed  them  yesterday.  I  take  first 
of  all  the  witness  Cronin.  He  had  said  there  were  seventy  or  eighty  men 
in  a  crowd.1 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — He  said  that  he  was  going  to  form  an  Irish 
Brigade,  and  he  said  why  live  any  longer  in  hunger  and  misery  in  this  camp  when  you 
can  better  yourselves  by  joining  the  Irish  Brigade  which  I  am  going  to  form;  you 
will  be  sent  to  Berlin  as  the  guests  of  the  German  Government. 

I  pause  there  to  ask  whether,  in  your  reading  of  the  habits  of  the 
German  Government,  you  think  that  the  German  Government  were  taking 
the  same  view  of  the  activities  of  the  prisoner  that  apparently  the  prisoner, 
according  to  the  evidence  put  forward  on  his  behalf  to-day,  was  taking.  I 
am  unaware  of  anything  in  the  history  of  the  German  nation  during 
this  war  which  would  lead  me  to  accept  with  enthusiasm  the  suggestion 
that  they  would  be  prepared  to  offer  unlimited  hospitality  to  a  number 
of  Irish  soldiers  in  order  that  when  the  war  was  over  they  would  be  able 
to  write  a  new  page  in  the  purely  domestio  history  of  their  country  •  I  am 
unaware  of  anything  in  the  suggestion  that  leads  me  to  accept  with  alacrity 
the  theory,  by  whomsoever  it  is  brought  forward. 

Examination  continued — Did  he  say  what  this  Irish  Brigade  was  to  do? — He 
said  in  the  event  of  Germany  winning  a  sea  battle  he  would  land  them  in  Ireland. 

Then  I  have  in  the  print,  "  And  Ireland  would  equip  them  " ;  I  do  not 
know  how  that  may  be,  I  do  not  recollect  that  answer.  The  words  I 
want  to  lay  stress  on  are  these,  "  He  said  in  the  event  of  Germany  winning 
"  a  sea  battle  he  would  land  them  in  Ireland." 

What  were  they  to  do  in  Ireland? — Free  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  who  they  were  to  fight  against? — Against  England. 

Did  he  say  what  would  happen  to  them  if  Germany  did  not  win? — They  would 

be  sent  to  America.     They  would  get  £10  or  £20  pocket  money  and  a  free  passage. 

*P.    17. 

168 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

If  the  nature  of  the  activities  which  were  contemplated  for  these 
men  were  of  the  character  which  it  is  now  suggested  to  you  on  behalf  of 
the  prisoner  they  were,  here  again  I  pause  to  express  my  eurprise  that 
the  German  Government,  in  return  for  such  prospective  services  after 
the  war,  were  found  advancing  or  promising  them  £10  or  £20  pocket 
money  at  the  end  of  the  war  and  a  passage  to  America.  It  may  be 
so,  but  it  would  surprise  me  if  it  were  so.  What  is  involved  in  that 
uncontradicted  evidence — never  forget  that — and  therefore  evidence,  as 
my  lord  will  tell  you,  to  be  received  by  you?  What  is  involved  in  that? 
If  Germany  won  a  sea  battle  they  were  to  be  landed  in  Ireland.  Does 
he  say  at  the  end  of  the  war  they  were  to  be  landed  in  Ireland?  He 
says  nothing  of  the  kind.  My  learned  friend,  Mr  Sullivan,  says,  if 
Germany  wins  a  sea  battle  that  would  be  the  end  of  the  war.  He  is 
quite  wrong.  It  does  not  necessarily  follow :  it  might  be  or  it  might 
not;  there  is  not  the  slightest  indication  in  the  ispeech  he  was  making  to 
them  that  the  prisoner  is  convinced  of  it ;  it  might  be  not  a  decisive  German 
success,  but  it  might  be  such  a  success  as  to  give  Germany  isuch  a  tem- 
porary control  of  the  eea  as  would  enable  her  to  send  these  men  over  to 
Ireland.  There  is  not  a  single  word  in  the  evidence  of  this  man  (I  will 
deal  with  the  story  of  the  other  witnesses  later)  which  lends  support  to  the 
view  that  the  prisoner  said  a  word  to  them  showing  that  their  inter- 
vention in  Ireland  was  to  be  at  the  end  of  the  war.  Their  interven- 
tion was  to  be  if  Germany  wins  a  isea  battle.  Why  do  you  suppose  he  took 
that  as  the  period?  For  obvious  reasons.  Until  Germany  won  a  sea 
battle  it  was  clear  that  it  would  be  extremely  difficult,  if  not  impossible, 
to  take  any  considerable  body  of  men  to  Ireland,  and  therefore  there 
would  be  no  serious  or  practical  proposal  at  all  if  he  had  not  made  this 
proviso.  And  so  the  proposal  was  at  the  earliest  moment  which  made 
it  possible,  when  success,  temporary  or  complete,  made  it  possible  to 
make  an  invasion  of  Ireland,  and  when  you  make  that  invasion  to  fight 
against  England — not  against  Volunteere  in  Ulster,  not  at  the  end  of 
the  war  to  see  fair  play  between  the  various  factions  and  to  see  that 
Ireland  is  not  robbed  of  her  birthright.  If  he  said  that,  wholly  different 
considerations  would  have  arisen;  but  he  did  not  say  that;  he  said  to 
these  men,  as  I  told  you  before,  attempting  to  corrupt  them,  in  effect: 
"  At  the  first  moment  you  can  eafely  get  to  Ireland  will  you  go  there; 
rt  will  you  join  this  brigade  and  fight  against  England?  "  Gentlemen, 
you  can  sweep  away  all  these  belated  after-thoughts  and  sophistries 
about  old  Irish  politics  and  the  Volunteers  in  the  north  of  Ireland.  They 
were  never  in  his  mind  when  he  made  these  speeches,  they  never  inspired 
the  appeals  he  made,  they  had  no  relation  to  it,  and,  as  I  have  said,  they 
are  after-thoughts  when  it  is  necessary  to  attempt  to  exhume  some  defence, 
however  remote  from  the  facts,  in  the  position  in  which  the  prisoner 
finds  himself. 

So  much  for  Cronin's  evidence.  Now,  let  me  take  the  evidence  of 
the  next  witness,  O'Brien1 — 

He  said  that  if  they  were  successful  in  winning  the  war  they  would  land  the 
Irish  Brigade  along  with  the  German  army  in  Ireland. 

Mark  that,  "  Along  with  the  German  Army."     Does  that  look  very 

1  P.  23. 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Attorney-General 

much  as  if  the  invasion  was  only  to  be  at  the  end  of  the  war?  That  is 
uncontradicted  evidence,  and  I  think  uncross-examined  too.  My  learned 
friend  reminds  me  of  a  passage  before  that1 — 

I  heard  him  say,  "Now  is  the  time  for  Irishmen  to  fight  against  England,  now  is 
"their  opportunity  for  doing  so;  join  the  Irish  Brigade."  He  said  he  came  to  form 
an  Irish  Brigade,  and  he  wanted  all  Irishmen  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade  and  become 
guests  of  the  German  army. 

Gentlemen,  I  pause  to  make  the  comment  there  that  I  am  not  one 
of  those  who,  in  dealing  with  the  memory  of  private  soldiers,  of  words 
said  to  them  many  months  ago,  under  circumstances  of  great  stress 
and  anxiety  on  their  part,  would  ask  you  or  any  other  jury  to 
accept  with  verbal  precision  their  recollection  of  what  was  said,  but  I 
would  confidently  ask  you  to  accept  their  recollection  as  to  the  broad 
and  salient  features  of  the  speech  so  often  made  to  them.  That  is  the 
recollection  of  this  man  O'Brien. 

My  lord  reminds  me  of  a  question,  and  it  is  convenient  I  should 
read  it,  in  the  cross-examination  by  my  learned  friend2 — 

Did  he  say  they  were  to  be  transferred  to  Ireland  when  Germany  had  won  the 
war?— Yes. 

And  if  Germany  failed  to  win  the  war  they  should  go  to  America? — To 
America,  yes. 

Arrangements  would  be  made  to  have  them  go  to  America.  Did  you  speak  to 
Sir  Roger  Casement  at  all  yourself? — No. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Then  there  is  the  re-examination. 
The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — There  is  the  re-examination  by  my  learned 
friend,  the  Solicitor-General3 — 

To  take  you  back  for  a  moment  to  the  speech  you  heard  Sir  Roger  Casement 
make,  he  said  the  Irish  Brigade  were  to  fight  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  who  were  to  take  them  to  Ireland  to  fight?— The  German  Army. 
Did  he  say  against  whom  they  were  to  fight? — To  fight  against  England. 

It  is  quite  obvious  that  the  phrase,  "  When  the  war  is  over,"  in 
such  a  connection  has  no  meaning  at  all.  If  they  were  to  be  taken  over 
to  Ireland  to  fight  against  this  country  by  any  German  agency,  military 
or  civil,  whether  they  were  also  accompanied  by  German  soldiers  or  not, 
it  is  quite  obvioue  that  if  one  war  was  over  that  was  the  commencement 
of  a  new  war;  it  was  an  act  of  hostility,  it  was  just  as  much  an  act  of 
treason  to  this  country  to  arrange  at  a  moment  when  a  particular  phase 
of  a  war  was  concluded  as  it  was  if  it  were  terminated  immediately,  by 
the  agency  of  your  late  enemy,  to  transport  armed  men  accompanied  by 
German  soldiers  to  Ireland;  it  was  just  as  much  an  act  of  hostility  as 
if  there  never  had  been  a  temporary  conclusion  of  the  existing  hostilities. 
The  truth  is,  as  one  must  recognise  when  you  look  closely  and  collate 
the  evidence  of  the  various  witnesses,  that  the  real  application  and  appeal 
that  was  made  to  them  was  that  they  should  go  to  Ireland  when  the  naval 
victory  was  won. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  come  to  the  evidence  of  Robinson4 — 

I  remember  him  saying,  "Now  is  your  chance  to  fight  for  Ireland  and  free  it.  I 
"am  very  glad  to  see  you  here.  This  is  the  only  chance  you  will  have  to  fight  for 
"Ireland.  Why  do  not  you  join  the  Irish  Brigade?"  Then  he  spoke  about  the 
treatment  of  Ireland  in  England.  That  is  all  I  remember. 

1  P.  23.        2  P.  24.        s  P.  25.        4  P.  26. 
170 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

What  was  the  Irish  Brigade  to  do? — They  were  supposed  to  land  in  Ireland 
and  free  Ireland. 

By  the  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Tell  us  what  you  heard  him  say,  not  what  they  were 
supposed  to  do? — That  is  about  all  I  can  remember  at  the  present  time.  He  said 
he  was  very  glad  to  see  so  many  Irishmen  here,  that  now  was  our  time  to  fight  for 
Ireland  and  strike  a  blow,  and  he  hoped  we  would  all  join  the  Irish  Brigade. 

Examination  continued — Did  he  say  with  whom  the  Irish  Brigade  were  going  to 
fight? — Fight  against  England.  He  said  that  if  Germany  had  a  victory  on  the  sea, 
they  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Ireland. 

This  statement  repeated  by  that  witness  is  what  I  ask  you  to  conclude 
was  actually  said  by  the  prisoner.  Those  are  the  term®  of  the  proposal, 
which  the  submission  of  the  Crown  puts  before  you,  dealing  with  the 
facts;  that  was  the  proposal,  that  if  Germany  had  a  victory  on  the  sea 
then  and  there  they  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Ireland.  My  learned 
friend  reminds  me  that  in  cross-examination  he  adhered  to  that  story1 — 

And  did  he  address  you?  Did  he  say  it  was  to  go  to  Ireland  when  the 
Germans  had  won  the  war? — No,  he  said  if  Germany  had  a  victory  on  sea. 

Did  he  speak  about  Germany  winning  the  war? — Yes. 

What  did  he  say  about  Germany  winning  the  war? — He  always  said  that 
Germany  would  win,  but  we  contradicted  him  and  said  they  would  not. 

I  suggest  to  you  that  he  represented  when  Germany  had  won  the  war  that  the 
Irish  Brigade  was  to  go  to  Ireland  unless  there  was  a  victory  at  sea  meantime. 
Was  that  what  he  said  ? — I  cannot  remember  that.  I  remember  him  saying  if  Ger- 
many had  a  victory  on  sea  he  would  land  us  in  Ireland. 

So  that  he  adheres  to  his  story  under  the  stress  of  cross-examination. 
I  am  reminded  of  another  question  in  my  learned  friend's  re-examina- 
tion2— 

You  told  the  jury  that  you  heard  Sir  Roger  Ca«ement  say  that  if  Germany  won 
a  victory  at  sea  the  Irish  Brigade  would  be  landed  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  who  would  send  the  Irish  Brigade  to  Ireland? — Germany  would 
send  us  to  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  whether  they  would  have  any  fighting  to  do? — He  did  not  go  into 
that;  he  said  it  was  to  free  Ireland  when  they  got  there. 

Did  he  say  from  whom  they  were  to  free  Ireland? — From  England. 

So  much  for  his  evidence.  Then  Michael  O'Connor  was  the  next 
witness.  He  heard  the  prisoner  addressing  some  men3 — 

He  said,  "  Now  is  the  time  to  fight  or  strike  a  blow  for  Ireland,"  and  that 
England  was  nearly  beaten. 

You  notice  the  exaltation  in  that  statement. 

I  should  think  there  were  about  seventy  men  listening  to  him.  I  was  on  the 
outskirts  of  the  crowd.  I  have  told  all  that  I  heard  him  say.  I  saw  him  on  that 
later  occasion,  but  I  did  not  hear  what  he  said.  The  people  were  hissing  and  booing 
him  down  the  lines  that  day.  He  said  that  those  that  hissed  him  were  followers  of 
Johnnie  Redmond,  the  recruiting  sergeant  of  the  British  Army.  A  sergeant-major  of 
the  4th  Dragoon  Guards  called  Casement  a  traitor.  That  sergeant-major  was  sent  to 
Giessen  or  some  other  camp  for  punishment,  along  with  Corporal  Robinson. 

Then   the   next   witness   is   Moore4 — 

Sir  Roger  Casement  asked  those  men  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade,  I  being  among 
the  men,  and  he  said  any  man  that  would  join  the  Irish  Brigade  he  would  give 
him  uniform,  better  food,  and  better  housing. 

1  P.  27.        2  P.  29.        3  P.  32.        4  P.  33. 

171 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Attorney-General 

The  theory,  I  may  pause  to  say,  put  forward  by  the  defence  has 
not  explained  to  us  why  a  German  uniform  should  have  been  immediately 
provided  for  the  men  then  if  the  fighting  was  to  be  in  Ireland  after  the 
war ;  that  is  a  link  that  is  somewhat  missing  in  the  explanations  that  have 
been  given.  I  resume  reading  now1 — 

He  also  said,  in  case  of  the  Germans  losing  the  war,  he  would  send  those  men 
to  America,  give  them  a  free  passage  and  £10  or  £20  pocket  money,  and  guarantee 
employment  in  America.  The  Irish  Brigade  was  to  be  sent  from  Limburg  to  a 
camp  outside  Berlin.  He  said  they  were  to  be  the  guests  of  the  German  Government. 
He  also  said  the  first  German  victory  on  the  water  he  would  land  the  brigade  in 
Ireland. 

Then  he  was  asked  what  was  to  be  done  with  the  Irish  Brigade,  and 
he  said  they  were  to  be  landed  in  Ireland.  Then  he  was  asked :  who  was 
going  to  land  them  in  Ireland,  but  that  he  does  not  know — 

I  did  not  hear  him  say  how  the  Irish  Brigade  were  going  to  get  to  Ireland, 
but  he  said  he  would  land  them  in  Ireland. 

There  again  you  find  the  statement  very  clearly  recollected  and  spoken 
to  by  this  witness,  that  it  was  to  be  sent  to  Ireland  when  the  German 
naval  victory  was  gained. 

I  come  now  to  the  evidence  of  Neill.  I  do  not  propose  to  read  that, 
because  I  have  to  make  an  observation  upon  it.  Neill,  you  will  remember, 
is  the  witness  who  spoke  about  the  Russians  and  the  Turks.  Without 
throwing  the  slightest  reflection  upon  his  good  faith  and  desire  to  tell 
the  truth,  comparing  the  statement  which  he  made  with  the  statements 
that  had  been  made  by  the  other  military  witnesses  who  have  been  called 
before  you,  I  do  not  ask  you  to  place  any  reliance  at  all  upon  the  isolated 
and  unsupported  evidence  of  Neill  as  to  these  observations  about  the 
Russians  and  the  Turks.  I  say  that  to  clear  the  ground,  because  I  want 
you  to  deal  with  the  case  upon  matters  which  are  established,  and  not  upon 
matters  which  are  disputable  or  may  be  questioned.  In  justice  to  Neill, 
I  only  make  it  clear  that  while  I  do  not  ask  you  to  accept  his  recollection, 
unsupported  as  it  is,  upon  this  point,  I  make  and  I  should  concur  in  no 
reflections  at  all  upon  the  man's  credibility  or  his  desire  to  tell  the  truth 
as  he  remembered  the  facts. 

I  have  given  you  now  the  clear  recollection  of  the  witnesses,  collecting 
it  together  so  that  you  may  have  it  all  before  your  minds,  at  the  same  time, 
as  to  what  was  actually  said  to  them  by  the  prisoner.  What  becomes 
of  the  defence,  and  what  becomes  of  the  only  defence  which  has  been 
attempted  to  be  made?  Is  there  one  witness  to  whom  it  was  suggested 
that  all  they  were  to  do  was  to  come  and  be  ready  in  order  to  watch  the 
Volunteers  in  the  north  of  Ireland?  Can  any  man  who  has  listened  to  that 
evidence  as  to  what  the  prisoner  actually  said  doubt  that  it  is  an  invented 
story  that  is  put  forward  that  he  was  concerned  to  obtain  the  services 
of  these  men  remotely  in  the  future,  in  order  that  they  might  deal  with 
the  situation  as  it  emerged  in  Ireland  after  the  war?  There  is  not  a  single 
witness  who  has  made  any  statement  consistent  with  that  view,  and  all  the 
witnesses  have  made  statements  that  are  wholly  inconsistent  with  that 

1  P.  34. 
172 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

view.  He  was  not  asking  them  anything  of  the  kind.  What  he  was  asking 
them  was  this,  if  Germany  gained  a  naval  success,  in  other  words,  if 
Germany  acquired  the  facilities  for  landing  troops  in  Ireland,  are  you 
prepared  to  go  and  fight  in  Ireland  against  England?  That  is  what  he 
said,  and  that  was  all  that  he  said,  that  was  what  he  always  said,  that  is 
what  all  these  witnesses  speak  to.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  attempt?  I 
respectfully  accept,  as  I  should  be  bound  to  accept,  the  indication  which  my 
lord,  the  Lord  Chief  Justice,  gave  to  my  learned  friend  as  to  the  direction 
which  he  proposed  to  give  you  on  the  question  of  law,  which  is  for  my  lord. 
I  do  not  pretend  to  recall  with  precision  the  admirable  language  in  which  my 
lord  stated  the  direction  which  he  proposed  to  give  to  you,  but  I  remember 
that  my  lord  said  this,  that  he  should  direct  you  that  anything  was  an  aiding 
and  comforting  of  the  King's  enemies  which  strengthened  the  enemy  for  the 
purpose  of  his  struggle  with  this  country,  or  which  weakened  this  country 
for  the  purpose  of  its  struggle  with  the  enemy.  I  ask  you  to  apply  that 
test  to  what  we  know  now  and  while  it  is  fresh  in  your  mind  on  the  uncon- 
tradicted  evidence  of  what  was  said  by  the  prisoner  Casement  to  these  men. 
There  is  no  other  evidence,  and  I  have  read  to  you  all  the  evidence  which 
there  is.  Apply  that  test.  Supposing  that  Germany  did  win  a  naval 
success,  giving  her  temporary  control  of  the  seas,  giving  it  her  for  long 
enough  to  land  Irish  and  German  soldiers  in  Ireland,  supposing  that  had 
taken  place,  would  that  or  would  it  not  have  strengthened  the  enemy  Ger- 
many in  her  struggles  with  this  country;  I  ask  you,  would  it  or  would  it 
not?  Would  it  or  would  it  not  have  weakened  this  country  in  her 
struggle  with  Germany,  supposing  that  happened  which  I  ask  you  to 
imagine?  If  you  answer  those  questions  as  I  ask  them,  only  one  answer 
is  possible.  Of  course,  Germany  must  have  been  necessarily  strengthened 
if  they  could  have  landed  troops  in  considerable  numbers,  and  arms  and 
ammunition  in  Ireland;  just  as  Germany  would  have  been  necessarily 
strengthened,  so  this1  country  would  have  been  necessarily  weakened. 

When  we  are  considering  these  contingencies,  when  we  are  attempting 
to  understand  motives  and  appraise  expectations,  we  must  not  confine  our 
views  to  what  we  know  now,  that  in  fact  these  men  retained  their  loyalty, 
starving  as  we  know  they  were,  starving  as  the  evidence  shows  us  they 
were,  starving  as  the  prisoner's  address  to  them  shows  that  he  knew  at  the 
moment,  when  he  made  his  appeal  to  them,  they  were.  It  is  true  that, 
in  spite  of  those  circumstances,  only  50  men  were  seduced  and  corrupted 
from  the  soldierly  duty  which  they  owed  to  their  Sovereign ;  that  is  true. 
But,  gentlemen,  supposing  they  had  all  been  seduced,  supposing  they  had 
stampeded  in  a  body,  supposing  the  attempt  which  he  desired  to  succeed 
had  wholly  succeeded,  and  there  had  been  thousands  of  these  Irish  soldiers 
who  in  Germany  had  consented  to  eat  the  bread  of  Germany,  and  wear  the 
uniform  of  Germany,  and  to  hold  themselves  in  readiness  to  come  and 
invade  Ireland  on  the  first  opportunity,  what  do  you  think  would  have  been 
the  moral  effect  on  the  strength  of  this  country?  Do  you  think  it  would 
have  weakened  her  in  this  war  that  it  should  have  been  known  that 
thousands  of  Irish  soldiers,  forming  the  flower  of  that  small  Expeditionary 
Force,  of  which  all  Englishmen  were  so  proud,  had  stampeded  into  the  arms 
and  the  camps  of  Germany,  and  were  now  to  be  seen  walking  at  will  in 

173 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Attorney-General 

Germany  wearing  Germany's  uniforms  and  anxiously  awaiting  the  moment 
when  a  German  success  at  sea  might  enable  them  to  be  transported  to 
Ireland,  in  order  that  they  might  take  up  arms  against  England;  would 
that  strengthen  Germany  and  weaken  England?  Have  you  any  doubt  in 
your  minds  that  considerations  of  that  kind  passed  through  the  minds  of 
Germany,  a  country  of  which  I  have  said  you  will  probably  draw  the  view 
that  they  are  not  guilty,  as  a  rule,  of  disinterested  acts  of  generosity  or 
charity.  If  that  was  the  view  the  prisoner  shared  with  the  German  Govern- 
ment, that  would  explain  their  readiness  to  provide  them  with  superior 
rations  and  uniforms,  and  their  readiness  to  promise  £10  or  £20  to  each 
man  if  the  war  went  unfavourably  for  Germany  and  he  had  to  be  sent 
back  to  America. 

I  have  said,  I  hope,  enough  upon  this  part  of  the  case,  and  now  I  come 
to  another  point  on  which  I  certainly  hoped  and  believed  that  my  learned 
friends  in  their  speeches  would  have  at  least  suggested  some  theory.  We 
now  know  that  the  prisoner  on  his  view,  such  is  his  case,  had  only  asked 
these  Irishmen  to  hold  themselves  in  readiness  to  go  to  Ireland,  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  war,  for  the  purpose  which  has  been  stated  to  you  so 
frequently.  I  should  like  to  have  heard  some  explanation  as  to  why 
he  went  to  Ireland,  having  been  in  Germany,  before  the  end  of  the  war. 
I  cannot  tell  you  how  he  went  to  Ireland.  I  agree  with  my  learned  friend 
Serjeant  Sullivan's  observation  on  this  point  that  the  Court  and  the  jury 
may  reasonably  take  cognisance  of  the  fact  that  Ireland  is  an  island,  and 
therefore  the  probability  is  that  he  went  there  by  sea.  To  that  view  I  assent. 
I  have  not  been  in  a  position  to  inform  you,  or  to  call  evidence  before  you, 
showing  how  he  got  to  Ireland.  My  friend  disputes  altogether,  I  will  not 
say  my  theory,  but  my  supposed  theory,  because  if  he  had  examined  my 
opening  speech  a  little  more  clearly  he  would  have  observed  that  I  did  not 
commit  myself  to  any  theory  upon  this  point;  I  studiously  and  carefully 
avoided  doing  BO;  but  my  learned  friend  disputes  the  supposed  theory  of 
the  Crown  that  the  "  Aud "  had  any  direct  connection  with  the  landing 
of  the  prisoner  in  Ireland.  He  says,  and  I  think  the  observation  he  makes 
here  upon  my  opening  is  well  founded,  that  I  put  it  too  high  when  I  said  the 
"  Aud  "  was  taken  near  Tralee.  I  think  that  criticism  made  by  him  is  well 
founded  upon  that  statement  in  my  opening  speech,  and  to  the  extent  to 
which  I  will  indicate  to  you  I  withdraw  it.  It  is  quite  true,  as  the  evidence 
stands  before  you,  that  the  "  Aud,"  consisting  of  a  crew  of  German  blue- 
jackets and  German  officers,  wast  not  captured  near  Tralee;  it  was  captured 
about  90  miles,  I  think  it  was  put,  from  Queens  town. 

The  LORD  CHEEP  JUSTICE — 138  miles  from  Queenstown,  90  miles  from 
the  coast. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — 90  miles  from  the  coast  of  Ireland.  I  did  not 
happen  to  be  in  Court  when  that  evidence  was  given.  That,  gentlemen, 
makes  it  very  necessary  to  ask  what  was  the  "  Aud  "  doing  on  the  view  of 
the  defence.  I  will  state  to  you  in  a  moment  the  view  of  the  Crown  as  to 
what  the  "  Aud  "  was  doing  quite  clearly,  and  I  do  not  care  whether  she 
was  within  3  miles  of  Tralee  or  within  90  miles  of  Tralee.  The  theory  of 
the  Crown  is  this,  that  it  was  all  part  of  a  concerted  enterprise,  concerted 
in  Germany.  I  stated  that  in  opening,  and  I  state  it  now.  I  made  a 
174 


Closing  Speech  for  the   Crown. 

Attorney-General 

geographical  error,  such  as  it  was,  but  I  re-etate  the  theory  of  the  Crown 
that  it  was  part  of  a  common  enterprise.  Whether  or  not  the  "  Aud  " 
was  to  be  landed  in  a  different  part  of  Ireland  I  do  not  argue,  and  I  am 
not  concerned  to  argue.  It  does  not  matter  to  me  where  it  was  going  to 
land  if  you  accept  the  view  that  it  was  going  to  land,  to  carry  arms  to 
Ireland.  I  do  not  know  that  my  learned  friend,  Serjeant  Sullivan,  did 
accept  that  view.  On  the  contrary,  I  think  some  of  the  observations  he 
made  support  an  entirely  different  view.  My  learned  friend,  Mr.  Jones, 
on  the  other  hand,  when  dealing  with  the  question  of  the  code,  said  it  may 
have  been  intended  for  the  purpose  of  communication  with  the  "  Aud." 
It  may  be;  I  do  not  know.  I  note  a  suggestion  which  may  prove  helpful 
in  this  tangled  mass,  when  so  much  is  left  to  conjecture  and  so  little  can 
be  alleged  with  certainty.  It  may  be  that  my  learned  friend  is  right.  The 
fact  that  this  code,  as  to  which  I  shall  make  some  further  observations 
to  you  in  a  moment,  was  available,  as  my  friend  suggests,  for  communica- 
tion with  the  "  Aud,"  would  not  prevent  it  being  available  for  communica- 
tion with  other  people  in  Germany;  but  the  mere  fact  that  such  a  sugges- 
tion should  be  possible  shows  really  that  there  is  no  doubt  in  the  mind  of 
anybody  that  there  was  a  connection  between  the  "  Aud  "  and  the  landing 
of  the  prisoner  in  Ireland.  If  the  prisoner  did  not  come  in  the  "  Aud," 
and  I  have  never  suggested  that  he  did,  then  it  is  obvious,  I  think,  that, 
coming  from  Germany,  as  we  know  he  did  (at  least,  we  must  draw  an 
irresistible  inference;  we  have  the  railway  ticket  from  Berlin  to  Wilhelms- 
haven,  dated  12th  April,  a  few  days  before  the  date  of  landing),  he  came  in 
some  other  German  vessel,  or  some  neutral  vessel  arranged  for  by  the 
Germans.  I  cannot  tell  you  what  the  vessel  was.  But  you  will  remember 
that  the  witness  Hussey  isaw  a  red  light  out  at  sea  at  half -past  nine  on 
Thursday  evening,  which  may  have  been  connected  with  the  actual  landing 
of  Casement.  One  of  my  learned  friends  reminds  me  that  in  the  diary, 
where  there  are  evidently  false  names  used  to  indicate  places,  on  the  12th 
April,  the  very  date  of  the  ticket  from  Berlin  to  Wilhelmshaven,  this 
entry  appears,  "  Left  Wicklow  in  Willie'is  yacht/'  False  names  are  used 
for  places  which  will  satisfy  you,  I  think,  as  to  what  the  meaning  of  that 
entry  ie.  That  entry  is  on  the  12th  April,  the  day  when  the  ticket  was 
actually  issued  in  Germany.  I  do  not  waste  any  further  time  upon  these 
points,  as  to  which  I  cannot  give  you  assistance,  because  I  have  not  the 
knowledge.  I  do  waste  time,  because,  from  my  point  of  view 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Mr.  Attorney,  you  mentioned  a  passage  in 
the  diary.  Is  there  any  evidence  as  to  whose  diary  it  is? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — It  was  a  diary.  I  will  give  your  lordship  the 
evidence  of  it.  It  was  a  diary  found. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  know,  but  as  far  as  my  recollection  goes 
there  was  no  further  evidence  given  beyond  the  fact  that  it  was  found. 
Whose  writing  it  is,  or  whoise  diary  it  is,  there  is  no  evidence. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — My  lord,  I  did  not  say  that  it  was  a  diary 
of  any  particular  person.  I  eaid  "  the  diary."  By  "  the  diary  "  I  mean 
the  diary  which  was  found,  and  is  in  evidence  as  having  been  found. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — I  thought  it  right  to  indicate  that,  because 

175 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Attorney-General 

it  might  have  conveyed  to  the  jury  that  it  was  Casement's  diary.  There 
is  no  evidence  of  it. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — You  have  heard,  gentlemen,  what  my  lord  has 
said.  If  there  was  any  misunderstanding  I  am  glad  it  should  be  removed. 
It  was  a  diary  found  with  three  men  as  to  whom  I  make  the  suggestion 
that  they  had  all  come  from  Germany.  There  is  no  evidence  before 
you  as  to  which  of  the  three  the  diary  belonged,  but  whoever  kept  the 
diary  made  the  note  that  on  the  12th  April,  the  day  when  the  ticket  was 
issued  from  Berlin  to  Wilhelmshaven,  they  left  Wicklow  in  Willie's  yacht, 
Wicklow  being  an  assumed  name,  on  the  suggestion  of  the  Crown,  and 
whether  "  Willie's  yacht"  was  a  flippant  way  of  describing  a  vessel  com- 
missioned in  the  name  of  the  Kaiser  is  a  matter  as  to  which  you  can  form 
your  opinion. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  called  attention  to  one  or  two  points  in  the 
matters  in  respect  of  which  the  defence  have  wholly  failed  to  give  any  ex- 
planation at  all  consistent  with  the  innocence  of  the  prisoner.  I  come  now  to 
the  most  striking  case  of  all.  I  come  to  the  matter  which,  if  there  was 
nothing  else  in  the  case,  would  show  in  the  most  conclusive  manner 
possible  that  the  whole  defence,  and  the  only  defence  relied  upon  here, 
is  wholly  without  basis  or  foundation,  and  that  is  the  code  which,  as  my 
learned  friend,  Mr.  Jones,  anticipated,  would  be  a  matter  upon  which 
the  Crown  would  lay  stress.  In  order  that  you  may  fully  understand 
the  damning  effect  of  the  code  upon  the  prisoner's  defence  you  must  once 
again  consider  the  circumstances  as  they  are  known  to  us  under  which 
he  came  to  Ireland.  He  came  to  Ireland,  if  the  defence  is  true,  as  a 
man  who  never  had  contemplated,  and  did  not,  in  fact,  contemplate, 
that  anything  should  be  done  in  Ireland  until  the  conclusion  of  the  war. 
That  is  his  case.  So  he  must  have  come  merely  in  the  capacity  of  one  who 
was  about  to  concern  himself  with  domestic  problems  in  Ireland.  If  his 
defence  be  well  founded,  it  must  be  said  that  he  came  to  Ireland  in  order 
to  carry  on  his  work  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  the  National 
Volunteers.  That  case  conceivably  might  have  been  put  forward. 
But  what  is  certain  is  this,  that  if  the  defence  made  here  to-day  is 
well  founded,  he  could  not  have  had  any  arrangement  with  the 
Germans  by  which  the  Germans  would  support  him  then  and  there. 
That  iis  plain.  If  he  went  to  Ireland  under  arrangements  by  which 
the  Germans  were  to  send  him  ammunition,  were  to  send  him  arms,  were 
to  isend  him  more  ammunition  and  more  arms,  it  is  quite  plain 
he  was  going  there  for  the  purpose  charged  by  the  Crown,  and  that  he 
could  not  have  been  going  there  for  the  purpose  indicated  or  suggested 
by  the  defence.  I  hope  that  is  clear.  To  me  it  is  so  plain  that  it 
requires  no  further  emphasis.  What  has  he  got  with  him?  What  does  he 
try  to  get  rid  of  when  arrested?  He  tries  to  get  rid  of  the  code,  an 
arranged  code  between  himself  and  the  Germans.  What  did  he  want  with 
a  code  between  himself  and  the  Germans  when  he  left  Germany?  His 
counsel  has  told  us  in  eloquent  language  that  he  was  not  going  at  any 
time  to  associate  Ireland  with  the  Germans ;  that  he  did  not  want  to  help 
Germany.  His  counsel  has  told  us  that  his  only  concern  was  with  the 
Volunteers  of  the  north.  Why  in  the  name  of  sanity  did  he  on  this  view 
176 


Part  of  the  Diary,  with  disguised  names  and  places. 
(Page  2.) 


Closing  Speech  for  the   Crown. 

Attorney-General 

want  to  arrange  a  code  with  the  Germans  ?  There  is  no  theory  consistent 
with  the  defence  which  will  explain  to  you  why  any  code  was  necessary  at 
all.  But  look  at  this  code.  Consider  the  nature  of  the  communications 
which,  when  he  left  the  country  of  our  enemy  for  Ireland,  he  knew  to  be 
required  by  his  purpose  and  their  purpose  to  pass  between  him  and  them. 

Look    at   this    code — ' '  Railway  communications   have   been  stopped. 
11  Our  men  are  at  ."       It  would  be  very  interesting  to  the  German 

Government,  on  the  theory  of  the  defence,  to  know  that  railway  com- 
munications had  been  stopped.  What  had  they  got  to  do  with  it? 
"  Further  ammunition  is  needed."  Does  that  throw  any  light  upon  the 
cargo  of  the  "Aud"?  Why  does  Germany  send  some  ammunition  in 
addition  to  which  it  is  contemplated  that  further  ammunition  may  be 
required?  The  mere  message  that  further  ammunition  may  be  required 
or  is  needed,  the  mere  language  in  which  that  message  is  couched,  pre- 
supposes and  renders  necessary  the  conclusion  that  some  ammunition  has 
already  been  given.  Why  is  the  prisoner  arranging  that  Germany  shall 
iSend  ammunition  to  Ireland,  not  at  the  end  of  the  war,  but  during  the 
war,  and  at  the  very  moment  of  the  bitterest  struggles  in  the  war?  Why 
is  that  being  done?  Is  it  being  done  in  order  that  at  the  end  of  the 
war  some  steps  may  be  taken  to  meet  the  Ulster  Volunteers?  Gentle- 
men, it  does  not  end  there.  "  Further  rifles  are  needed.  How  many 
"  rifles  will  you  send  us?  How  much  ammunition  will  you  send  us?  " 
Then  listen  to  this — "  Will  send  plan  about  landing  on  ."It 

might  be  filled  in  as  the  exigencies  of  the  moment  might  require. 
What  does  it  mean  without  being  filled  in?  It  means  a  plan  will  be 
necessary  to  prepare  for  another  landing,  a  landing  of  troops,  a  brigade, 
whatever  it  might  be,  ammunition,  explosives;  and  the  prisoner,  who  is 
only  concerned  with  the  Volunteers  in  the  north  after  the  war,  leaves 
Germany  in  the  middle  of  this  war  with  a  code  in  which  he  and  the 
Germans  acting  in  concert  have  carefully  prepared  themselves  with  mess- 
ages, secret  messages  by  which  he  from  Ireland  can  send  to  them  a  plan 
for  hostile  landings  in  the  middle  of  this  war,  and  then  we  are  told  fairy 
tales  about  what  is  going  to  be  done  after  the  war  with  the  Volunteers 
of  the  north  of  Ireland.  What  had  the  Germans  to  do  with  a  landing 
made  pendente  bello  if  there  was  any  basis  or  substance  in  the  only  case 
that  has  been  put  before  you?  Then  listen  to  another — "  Send  ship  to 
."  You  will  understand  now  why  I  thought  I  might  deal  with 
some  economy  of  time  with  the  character  and  mission  of  the  "  Aud." 
"  Send  another  ship  to  .  Send  rifles  and  ammunition  to 

"  Cannons  and  plenty  of  ammunition  are  needed.     Send  them  to 
"Send  more  explosives  to  .     Send  a  vessel  if  possible."       What 

does  all  that  mean?  It  is  no  good  my  repeating  it  and  elaborating  and 
over -elaborating  it.  What  it  means  is  obvious.  Then,  as  I  am  reminded, 
"  This  code  holds  good  from  22nd  April  to  20th  May,"  a  period  I  need 
hardly  point  out  to  you  all  of  which  was  actually  engaged  in  hostilities. 

One  further  word  and  I  will  say  no  more  about  this  code,   because 

its  meaning  is  clear,  and  no  useful  purpose  can  be  served  by  repetition. 

This  code,  on  the  submission  of  the  Crown,  shows  that  there  is  no  substance 

at  all  in  the  case  put  forward  by  the  defence.     This  code,  on  the  submission 

N  177 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Attorney-General 

of  the  Crown,  shows  that  the  prisoner  Casement,  who  went  under  circum- 
stances unexplained  to  us,  and  which  I  cannot  explain,  to  the  enemy 
country  while  hostilities  were  in  progress,  who  was  allowed  his  freedom 
in  that  country  while  hostilities  were  in  progress,  who  left  that  country 
for  Ireland  while  hostilities  were  in  progress,  had  agreed  with  the  Germans 
to  send  them  messages  arranging  for  a  landing,  asking  for  another  ship, 
and  asking  for  explosives,  for  cannons,  and  for  ammunition.  Gentlemen, 
if  you  can  reconcile  those  facts  with  the  duty  which  the  prisoner  owed  to 
this  country,  if  you  can  reconcile  those  facts  with  the  submissions  which 
have  been  made  to  you  on  behalf  of  the  defence,  do  so.  If  those  facts 
taken  together,  his  journey  to  Germany,  his  speeches  when  in  Germany, 
the  inducements  he  held  out  to  these  soldiers,  the  freedom  which  he  there 
enjoyed,  the  course  which  he  pursued  in  Ireland,  the  messages  which  he 
contemplated  as  likely  to  take  place  between  himself  and  the  Germans, 
satisfy  you  of  his  guilt  you  must  give  expression  to  that  view  in  your 
verdict. 

My  learned  friend,  Mr.  Sullivan,  said  in  the  early  period  of  his 
observations  that  he  hoped  this  case  would  be  heard  by  you  with  a  fair 
and  impartial  mind.  The  Crown  hopes  nothing  else.  You  have  a  duty 
to  discharge  as  serious  and  in  many  ways  as  testing  as  the  duties  which 
are  discharged  by  any  other  men  serving  the  State  in  these  bloody  and 
critical  days.  If  you  should  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Crown  has 
proved  its  case,  however  painful  the  duty,  it  is  one  from  which  you  cannot, 
and  you  dare  not,  shrink.  I  have  discharged  my  responsibility  in  this 
case;  do  you  discharge  yours. 


The  Lord  Chief  Justice's  Summing  Up. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  this  is  a  trial  of 
supreme  importance.  The  charge  against  the  prisoner  is  the  gravest 
known  to  the  law.  You  have  had  the  advantage,  shared  by  us  with  you, 
of  hearing  the  case  presented  to  you  by  the  Attorney-General,  assisted  by 
the  Solicitor-General  and  other  counsel,  on  behalf  of  the  Crown.  You  have 
had  the  advantage  also  of  hearing  the  defence  in  this  case  conducted  by 
Mr.  Sullivan  until  this  morning,  with  the  assistance  of  his  juniors.  There 
are  some  persons  who,  perhaps  a  little  thoughtlessly,  are  inclined  to  rebel 
against  the  notion  that  a  member  of  the  English  bar,  or  members  of  it, 
should  be  found  to  defend  a  prisoner  on  a  charge  of  treason  against  the 
British  State.  I  need  not  tell  you  I  am  sure,  gentlemen,  that  if  any  one 
has  those  thoughts  in  his  mind  he  has  but  a  poor  conception  of  the  high 
obligation  and  responsibility  of  the  bar  of  England.  It  is  the  proud 
privilege  of  the  bar  of  England  that  it  is  ready  to  come  into  Court  and  to 
defend  a  person  accused,  however  grave  the  charge  may  be.  In  this  case, 
speaking  for  my  learned  brothers  and  myself,  we  are  indebted  to  counsel 
for  the  defence  for  the  assistance  they  have  given  us  in  the  trial  of  this 
case;  and  I  have  no  doubt  you  must  feel  equally  indebted.  It  is  a  great 
benefit  in  the  trial  of  a  case,  more  particularly  of  this  importance,  that  you 
should  feel  as  we  feel,  that  everything  possible  that  could  be  urged  on  behalf 
178 


Lord   Chief  Justice's   Summing  Up. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

of  the  defence  has  been  said  in  this  case  after  much  thought,  much  study, 
much  deliberation,  and  particularly  by  one  who  has  conducted  the  defence 
in  accordance  with  the  highest  traditions  of  the  English  bar.  Mr.  Sullivan 
made  a  speech  of  most  striking  power  and  eloquence.  You  heard  it.  You 
must  have  felt  its  effect,  and,  not  only  in  the  force  of  his  argument  in  the 
speech,  but  also  in  the  legal  presentment  of  the  case,  it  would  be  impossible 
to  find  anything  that  could  be  urged  on  behalf  of  the  defence  that  has  not 
been  said  with  the  greatest  skill,  and,  let  me  add,  with  commendable 
courage. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  will  remember  in  considering  this  case  that  in 
a  trial  of  treason  what  must  be  in  your  mind  is  that  it  is  a  very  grave 
offence.  At  all  times,  to  betray  the  King,  that  is  the  State,  that  means 
the  country,  and  that  means  those  of  us  who  are  subjects  of  the  King  who 
live  in  a  common  society,  is  and  must  ever  be  a  most  odious  charge.  But 
treason  in  time  of  war  by  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  by  aiding  and 
comforting  the  King's  enemies,  when  all  persons  are  making  sacrifices  in 
this  country  to  resist  the  enemy,  and  are  all  combining,  whatever  their  views 
may  be,  to  defeat  the  common  enemy — treason  in  these  times  is  almost  too 
grave  for  expression.  Gentlemen,  it  is  because  one  must  feel  that  that  I 
desire  to  caution  you  in  this  case.  This  case,  like  all  criminal  cases,  must 
be  considered  and  judged  calmly  and  dispassionately.  We  must  be  careful 
to  deal  with  it  according  to  the  evidence  in  the  case.  You  must  banish 
from  your  mind  everything  you  may  have  read  or  heard  outside  of  this 
Court.  You  have  sworn  by  the  oaths  that  you  took  when  you  went  into  the 
jury-box  to  deal  with  the  case  according  to  the  evidence;  and  let  me 
remind  you  of  it,  because  it  is  not  very  easy  in  a  case  of  this  description, 
where  the  defence  have  thought  it  right  and  necessary  for  the  purposes  of 
their  case  to  introduce  political  considerations,  to  concentrate  your  atten- 
tion closely  and  exclusively  upon  the  evidence  that  has  been  given  before 
you.  Let  me  also  tell  you  what  has  been  said  by  the  learned  Attorney- 
General,  endorsing  the  view  presented  to  you  by  Mr.  Artemus  Jones  this 
morning,  that  it  is  for  the  Crown  to  satisfy  you  beyond  all  reasonable 
doubt  that  the  prisoner  is  guilty  of  the  charge  made  against  him.  It  is 
not  for  the  defence  to  disprove  the  charge.  Before  you  find  a  verdict  of 
guilty  against  the  prisoner,  you  must  be  satisfied  that  the  prosecution 
has  proved  it. 

Before  I  consider  the  evidence  there  is  one  other  observation  I  want 
to  make,  and  that  is  this.  We  have  heard  much  in  this  case  about  politics 
in  Ireland.  It  is  impossible  to  refrain  from  making  some  observation  upon 
the  evidence  that  has  been  given.  For  myself,  I  always  feel  anxiety  in  a 
Court  of  justice  when  there  is  any  possibility  of  the  introduction  of  political 
passion.  Justice  is  ever  in  jeopardy  when  passion  is  aroused.  To  deal  with 
this  case  you  must  consider  it,  as  I  am  sure  you  will,  quite  calmly  and  dis- 
passionately, according  to  the  evidence.  Pay  no  more  attention  to  what  has 
been  said  with  regard  to  the  condition  of  Ireland  before  the  war  or  after 
the  war  than  is  necessary  in  order  to  understand  the  circumstances  of  this 
case,  and  more  particularly  to  do  justice  to  the  defence  which  is  set  up. 
Mr.  Sullivan  said  to  you  yesterday  in  the  observations  he  made  upon  the 
defence,  that  he  was  afraid  he  might  be  saying  some  things  that  would 

179 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

startle  you  in  this  Court.  He  indeed  said  that  he  felt  almost  in  a  strange 
atmosphere.  Well,  gentlemen,  with  regard  to  those  observations,  let  me 
urge  you,  without  knowledge  for  one  moment  of  the  views  of  any  one  of 
you  in  regard  to  a  subject  upon  which  opinion  is  divided  in  this  country, 
and  even  more  so  in  Ireland,  not  to  allow  yourselves  to  be  influenced  in 
any  way  by  any  political  opinion  which  may  have  been  discussed  or  which 
may  even  have  been  put  forward  and  urged  by  Mr.  Sullivan  in  his  address 
to  you.  I  cannot  but  think  that  he  paid  the  highest  compliment  to  an 
English  jury  when  he  had  the  courage  to  address  you  as  he  did  yesterday 
upon  Ireland.  It  is  all  to  the  good  that  it  was  done.  He  did  it  in  the 
interests  of  his  client,  to  present  to  you  his  client's  point  of  view,  so  that 
you  might  be  able  to  gauge  his  client's  mind,  and,  in  order  to  do  it,  it 
was  necessary  that  he  should  fearlessly  put  certain  contentions  before  you. 
Gentlemen,  one  may  dismiss  the  greater  part  of  them  very  quickly,  because 
we  are  not  even  on  debatable  ground.  That  there  was  conflict,  Parlia- 
mentary conflict,  with  regard  to  Irish  affairs  for  a  few  yeans  before  the 
war  is  only  to  say  what  has  happened  for  a  very  long  period.  That  it 
became  acute  between  the  north  of  Ireland  and  other  portions  of  Ireland 
equally  is  beyond  question.  That  during  the  passage  of  the  Home  Rule 
Bill,  particularly,  as  we  are  told  on  the  evidence,  after  the  second  reading, 
there  were  heated  speeches  made,  parts  of  which  have  been  quoted  to  you,  is 
again  quite  outside  the  region  of  controversy.  That  even  the  situation  was 
acute  immediately  before  the  war,  you  make  take  as  established  by  the 
evidence,  and  one  may  say,  from  common  knowledge.  But,  gentlemen, 
when  you  get  to  the  war,  from  the  4th  August,  1914,  although  we  have 
evidence  in  this  case  that  some  persons  did  continue  arming,  that  there 
was  marching,  counter-marching,  and  skirmishing,  as  it  has  been  termed, 
for  the  purpose  of  exercise,  yet  at  least  it  can  be  said,  and  must  be  said, 
that  all  parties  united,  not  only  in  Great  Britain,  not  only  in  the  British 
Dominions,  but  also  in  Ireland,  where,  much  to  the  consternation  of  the 
common  enemy,  it  was  found  that,  however  deep  the  gulf  might  be  between 
the  north  of  Ireland  and  other  portions  of  Ireland  in  times  of  peace,. when 
war  came  against  the  British  Empire  there  was  a  union  of  forces  which 
would  resist  any  attack  made  upon  the  Empire.  With  that,  I  think,  for 
the  moment  at  any  rate,  it  is  unnecessary  that  we  should  go  further  into 
the  history  of  Irish  politics.  Except,  perhaps,  I  may  remind  you  of  this. 
We  have  been  told  in  the  course  of  the  evidence  that  steps  have  been  taken 
to  preserve  the  position,  at  any  rate  during  the  war,  up  to  the  present 
moment,  and  for  some  further  period,  and  that  every  attempt  is  made  to 
allay  any  bitterness  and  to  prevent  any  disunion  during  the  continuance 
of  the  war. 

With  those  facts  in  mind,  let  me  just  tell  you  what  the  charge  is  in 
this  case.  It  is  that  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  in  the  Empire  of 
Germany  contrary  to  the  Treason  Act  of  1351.  The  particulars  of  the 
offence  are  that  Sir  Roger  Casement,  a  British  subject,  did  on  various  dates 
and  whilst  this  country  was  at  war  with  the  German  Emperor  contrive  and 
intend  to  aid  and  assist  the  enemies  of  the  King  against  the  King,  and 
did  traitorously  adhere  to,  aid  and  comfort  the  King's  enemies  in  the 
Empire  of  Germany.  That  is  using  language  which  is  not  only  well  known 
180 


Lord  Chief  Justice's   Summing  Up. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

in  Courts  of  law,  but  is  simple  enough,  although  part  of  it  is  old-fashioned 
phraseology.  You  heard  a  very  lengthy  discussion  as  to  the  meaning  of 
words  in  the  statute  yesterday.  We  have  ruled  in  this  Court,  following, 
as  we  think,  the  law  as  laid  down  certainly  for  centuries,  that  to  do  an 
act  which  amounts  to  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  is  an  offence  of 
treason,  although  the  act  is  committed  without  the  realm,  that  is,  in  the 
Empire  of  Germany.  You  need  not  trouble  yourselves  about  the  law.  It 
is  for  us  as  judges  to  direct  you  as  to  the  law.  It  is  for  you  to  decide 
the  facts.  Those  are  for  you  and  for  you  only,  and  the  direction  that  I 
shall  give  you  of  the  law  will  enable  you  to  understand  the  case  and  to 
devote  attention  to  the  special  points  necessary,  in  order  to  determine 
whether  or  not  the  prisoner  is  guilty  or  not  guilty  of  this  offence.  When 
I  deal  with  the  facts  I  beg  of  you  to  remember  that  I  am  not  the  judge 
of  the  facts,  nor  are  my  learned  brothers ;  that  the  judges  of  the  facts  are 
you  gentlemen  who  sit  in  the  jury-box.  I  shall  make  observations  to  you 
upon  the  evidence  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  you  to  arrive  at  a  just 
conclusion,  but  you  will  remember  that  in  so  far  as  they  may  reflect  any 
view  which  I  may  have  formed  of  the  facts,  it  is  for  you  to  come  to  the 
conclusion,  and  if  you  do  not  agree  with  any  observation  I  may  make  upon 
the  facts,  then,  it  is  for  you  not  to  pay  further  attention  to  it  than  to 
consider  it.  If  you  agree,  then,  you  must,  of  course,  act  accordingly. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  offence  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  is 
described  in  the  worda  of  the  statute  as  ' '  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the 
"  King's  enemies."  I  direct  you  as  a  matter  of  law,  that  if  a  man,  a 
British  subject,  does  an  act  which  strengthens  or  tends  to  strengthen  the 
enemies  of  the  King  in  the  conduct  of  the  war  against  the  King,  that  is, 
in  law,  the  giving  of  aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's  enemies.  Again, 
if  a  British  subject  commits  an  act  which  weakens  or  tends  to  weaken 
the  power  of  the  King  and  of  the  country  to  resist  or  to  attack  the 
enemies  of  the  King  and  the  country,  that  is,  in  law,  the  giving  of  aid 
and  comfort  to  the  King's  enemies.  If  I  may  put  it  to  you,  the  real 
point  to  which  you  must  direct  your  attention  in  this  matter  when  you 
are  considering  whether  or  not  the  acts  done  amounted  to  adhering  to  the 
King's  enemies  in  the  sense  of  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's 
enemies  is :  ' '  Were  the  acts  done  such  as  would  strengthen  the  German 
"  Emperor  or  such  as  would  weaken  His  Majesty  the  King?  "  You  must 
consider,  in  coming  to  a  conclusion  as  to  the  evidence,  whether,  as  has 
been  pointed  out  to  you  by  the  Attorney-General  for  the  Crown,  the 
stirring  up  of  a  strife  in  Ireland  between  the  north  and  the  Nationalists, 
or  the  fomenting  of  an  armed  insurrection,  or,  indeed,  the  procuring  or 
causing  any  result  in  Ireland  which  would  cause  disturbance  and  trouble 
of  a  serious  character  there,  would  have  been  of  assistance  to  Germany 
in  the  conduct  of  this  war.  It  does  not  need  a  very  vivid  imagination  to 
see  that  if  Germany  could  introduce  arms  and  ammunition  into  Ireland  for 
the  purpose  of  helping  to  create  a  rebellion  there,  or  strife  of  a  serious  char- 
acter, so  as  to  occupy  the  attention  of  the  British  Executive,  and  also  to 
necessitate  the  maintaining  of  a  considerable  number  of  His  Majesty's 
soldiers  in  Ireland,  that  that  would  be  assisting  Germany.  It  would 
certainly  be  weakening  the  power  of  the  Crown  to  the  extent,  at  any  rate, 

181 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

that  it  made  it  necessary  to  keep  soldiers  in  Ireland  instead  of  sending 
them  out  to  the  Front. 

The  defence  in  this  case  does  not  really  dispute  the  main  facts  of  the 
case.  The  one  part  of  the  evidence  which  was  seriously  contested  by 
Mr.  Sullivan  yesterday  is  not  insisted  upon  by  the  Crown  to-day.  You 
will  remember  that  Mr.  Sullivan  did  attack  vehemently  that  part  of 
NeilPs  evidence  which  was  to  the  effect  that  the  prisoner  had  told  those 
who  were  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade  that  they  were  first  to  assist  the  Turks 
against  the  Russians,  and  then  they  were  to  assist  the  Germans  against 
the  English,  and  then  they  were  to  fight  for  their  own  country.  You 
may  dismiss  that  part  of  the  evidence  from  your  mind  altogether.  The 
Crown  does  not  insist  upon  it,  and,  without  making  any  reflection  what- 
ever upon  the  witness  Neill,  says  it  does  not  ask  you  to  act  upon  that,  and, 
therefore,  you  may  leave  that  part  of  the  case  out  of  consideration.  It 
brings  us  to  the  real  point  in  this  case.  It  does  not  arise  so  much  upon 
the  evidence,  that  is,  on  the  particular  words  used,  as  on  the  inferences  that 
you  draw  from  the  evidence  as  given.  If  I  may  put  it  as  simply  as 
possible,  the  defence  says  that  Sir  Roger  Casement  only  asked  persons, 
these  soldiers,  to  become  members  of  the  Irish  Brigade  for  the  purpose  of 
assisting  to  resist  the  Ulster  Volunteers  after  the  war  had  concluded.  The 
whole  importance  of  this  for  the  moment  is  whether  it  is  right  to  say  that 
that  is  the  true  effect  of  the  evidence.  The  Crown  says  to  you  that 
that  is  not  the  true  effect ;  that  every  fact  that  you  examine  points  to  the 
contrary;  and  that  what  was  intended  was-  that  at  the  first  sea  victory 
Irish  soldiers  should  be  landed,  and  that  the  Irish  Brigade  should  then  be 
introduced  into  Ireland ;  and  the  comment  is  naturally  made  that  until 
there  had  been  a  sea  victory  of  Germany  it  would  be  impossible  for 
Germany  to  land,  at  any  rate,  any  considerable  number  of  Irish  soldiers, 
even  if  they  could  have  enrolled  them  in  the  brigade — if  not  impossible, 
at  least  extremely  difficult ;  and  the  suggestion  made  to  you  by  the  Crown 
ia  that  the  inducements  held  out  and  the  statements  made  were  that  as 
soon  ae  Germany  had  won  a  sea  victory  those  who  became  members  of  the 
Irish  Brigade  were  to  be  introduced  into  Ireland ;  and  the  Crown  says  that 
if  that  is  the  true  view  there  is  only  one  conclusion  possible.  Those  are 
the  two  contentions.  I  shall  have  something  to  say  to  you  before  I  close 
this  case  upon  the  view  presented  to  you  by  the  defence,  even  if  you  accept 
the  version  contended  for  by  the  defence,  but  I  will  leave  that  for  the 
moment. 

Gentlemen,  the  evidence  establishes  the  history  of  the  prisoner, 
which  is  now  familiar  to  you,  and  which  I  shall  not  repeat,  but 
which  substantially  is  to  the  effect  that  he  was  in  the  employ  of  the 
British  Crown,  that  he  served  in  the  Foreign  Office,  that  he  acted  as  His 
Majesty's  Consul,  that  he  came  to  the  period  when  he  retired,  that  he 
was  knighted  as  an  honour  to  him  in  recognition  of  the  services  that  he 
rendered  to  the  King  and  the  State,  and  that  he  was  subsequently  employed 
in  a  Commission  whioh  went  abroad  to  South  America  to  inquire  into  the 
atrocities  of  Putumayo,  and  that  that  was  the  condition  of  things  till  just 
a  little  before  the  war.  Until  this  moment,  a  little  before  the  war,  there 
is  nothing  to  indicate  that  there  was  any  want  of  allegiance  in  him.  That 
was  the  position  then.  Later,  after  the  war,  on  a  date  which  we  do  not 
182 


Lord   Chief  Justice's   Summing  Up. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

really  know,  he  went  to  Germany.  How,  why,  in  what  circumstances  we 
have  no  information ;  but  he  went  there,  and  the  contention  with  which 
you  are  now  familiar  is  that  whilst  there  he  committed  the  treason  with 
which  he  is  charged. 

High  treason  is  an  offence  committed  against  the  duties  of  allegiance 
to  the  Sovereign.  It  is  founded  on  the  relation  of  the  person  to  the 
Crown,  and  on  the  privileges  he  derives  from  that  relation.  There  is  a 
passage,  and  the  only  passage  with  which  I  shall  trouble  you,  in  Sir  Michael 
Foster's  Discourse  on  the  Law  of  High  Treason,  a  very  high  authority, 
written  by  a  very  distinguished  author,  in  which  he  says,  "  Natural 
"  allegiance  is  founded  in  the  relation  every  man  standeth  in  to  the 
te  Crown,  considered  as  the  head  of  that  society  whereof  he  is  born  a 
"member;  and  on  the  peculiar  privileges  he  deriveth  from  that  relation, 
"which  are,  with  great  propriety,  called  his  birthright.  This  birthright 
"  nothing  but  his  own  demerit  can  deprive  him  of.  It  is  indefeasible  and 
' '  perpetual ;  and,  consequently,  the  duty  of  allegiance,  which  ariseth  out 
"of  it,  and  is  inseparably  connected  with  it,  is,  in  consideration  of  law, 
"  likewise  unalienable  and  perpetual."  Now,  there  are  various  kinds 
of  treason.  There  may  be  the  act  known  as  compassing  the  King's 
death ;  it  may  be  levying  war  against  the  King ;  or  it  may  be  that  form  of 
treason  with  which  you  are  concerned  in  this  case,  the  only  one,  therefore, 
with  which  you  need  trouble  yourselves.  The  history  of  the  law  of 
treason  in  this  country  is  of  extreme  interest.  It  shows  that  throughout 
centuries  there  has  always  been  the  attempt  made,  and  successful  attempt 
in  many  cases,  to  protect  the  liberty  of  the  subject  against  encroachments 
of  their  liberty,  and  particularly  in  much  more  remote  periods  fortunately 
against  encroachments  of  the  Crown.  Statutes  have  been  passed  of  which 
you  have  heard  some  read.  I  only  mean  to  refer  to  that  portion  of  the  law 
which  is  applicable  to  the  case  now  before  you  in  order  to  tell  you  that 
the  law  requires  in  this  case  that  the  overt  acts  (and  I  will  explain  to  you 
what  they  mean  in  a  moment)  which  are  charged  against  the  .prisoner 
should  be  proved  by  two  witnesses  to  an  overt  act,  or  one  witness  to  one 
overt  act,  and  another  witness  to  another  overt  act,  both  of  the  same 
form  of  treason.  In  this  case  you  need  not  trouble  yourselves  about  that 
.direction,  except  to  bear  in  mind  when  you  are  considering  the  evidence 
and  determining  whether  you  can  rely  upon  it  that  there  must  be  two 
witnesses  to  an  overt  act  in  order  to  justify  you  in  finding  the  prisoner 
guilty — either  two  witnesses  to  one  overt  act  or  one  witness  to  one  and 
another  witness  to  another  overt  act,  both  of  the  same  treason. 

You  may  say,  and  probably  have  asked  yourselves  during  the  course  of 
the  case,  what  are  overt  acts?  Overt  acts  are  such  acts  as  manifest  a 
criminal  intention  and  tend  towards  the  accomplishment  of  the  criminal 
object.  They  are  acts  by  which  the  purpose  is  manifested  and  the  means 
by  which  it  is  intended  to  be  fulfilled.  According  to  our  law  it  is 
necessary  in  charging  a  prisoner  with  this  offence  to  state  in  the  indictment 
the  overt  acts  upon  which  reliance  is  placed;  and,  again,  the  greatest 
care  is  taken  that  a  man  shall  not  be  taken  by  surprise  in  a  charge  of  this 
character ;  and  the  law  says  that  no  evidence  shall  be  given  of  any  overt 
act  which  is  not  charged  in  the  indictment ;  the  full  effect,  therefore,  being 

183 


Sir  Roger  Casement, 


Lord  Chief  Justice 


that  when  the  prisoner  comes  into  Court  to  answer  the  indictment  of  treason 
he  has  the  particulars  given  to  him  in  writing,  and  at  some  time  before 
he  comes  into  Court,  in  order  that  he  may  be  ready  to  defend  himself. 
Gentlemen,  I  am  not  going  to  read  to  you  the  overt  acts,  for  the  reason 
that  they  can  be  summarised,  I  think,  very  briefly.  You  may  divide 
them  into  two  parts,  the  first  part  dealing  with  what  I  may  call  the  Irish 
Brigade  incidents,  the  second  part  dealing  with  the  21st  April,  1916,  and 
the  incidents  connected  with  that  date.  It  is  quite  possible  for  you  to  come 
to  the  conclusion — it  is  entirely  for  you — that  both  of  the  sets  of  overt  acts 
are  really  part  and  parcel  of  the  same  scheme  and  of  the  same  set  of 
operations.  The  first  five  overt  acts  alleged  deal  with  the  period  between 
December,  1914,  and  February,  1915.  The  substance  of  the  charge  ie 
that  the  prisoner  solicited  and  incited  and  endeavoured  to  persuade 
soldiers  of  the  King  to  forsake  their  allegiance  and  to  join  the  armed 
forces  of  the  enemy,  and  to  fight  against  the  King;  further,  the  charge 
is  of  circulating  and  distributing  a  leaflet,  to  which  I  will  direct  your 
attention  later,  with  the  object  of  soliciting,  inciting,  and  persuading  the 
Irish  soldiers  to  forsake  their  duty  to  the  King  and  to  aid  and  assist  the 
enemy  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war  against  the  King;  and  then  another 
form  of  the  same  charge  is  that  of,  in  fact,  persuading  and  procuring 
certain  persons — some  of  them  are  named,  Bailey,  Quinless,  O'Callaghan, 
Keogh,  Cavanagh,  Greer,  Scanlan,  and  others  whose  names  are  unknown, 
to  the  number  of  about  fifty,  to  forsake  their  allegiance  to  the  King  and 
to  join  the  forces  of  the  enemy  with  a  view  to  fight  against  the  King 
and  his  subjects  in  the  war.  That  substantially  deals  with  what  I  call, 
for  convenience  and  brevity,  the  Irish  Brigade  incidents.  The  second 
part  of  the  charge  is  that  in  April,  1916,  the  prisoner  set  forth  from 
Germany  as  a  member  of  a  warlike  and  hostile  expedition  undertaken  and 
equipped  by  the  enemies  of  the  King,  having  for  its  object  the  introduction 
into  and  landing  on  the  coast  of  Ireland  of  arms  and  ammunition 
intended  for  use  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war  by  the  enemies  against  the 
King. 

Now,  gentlemen,  when  considering  your  verdict  you  will  also  bear 
in  mind  that  if  one  overt  act  out  of  the  six  alleged  is,  in  your  judgment, 
proved  against  the  prisoner,  that  means  a  verdict  of  guilty.  It  is  not 
necessary  that  you  should  find  that  all  six  overt  acts  are  proved.  You 
may,  in  your  opinion,  come  to  the  conclusion  that  all  six  are  proved,  or 
that  only  some  or  one  of  them  can  be  proved.  If  you  do,  that  is  sufficient 
to  constitute  treason.  One  overt  act  properly  proved  is  all  that  is  necessary 
to  constitute  the  offence. 

The  last  observation  I  will  make  to  you  upon  the  law  is  that  you 
must  be  satisfied  before  you  convict  the  prisoner  of  the  intention  and 
purpose  of  the  act.  We  were  told  by  Mr.  Sullivan  yesterday  that  you 
had  to  arrive  at  the  mind  of  the  prisoner,  and  he  suggested  that  it  was 
difficult,  almost  impossible,  for  an  Englishman  to  divine  what  was  passing 
in  the  mind  of  an  Irishman,  or  to  understand  it.  You  never  really  can 
get  at  the  actual  thought  passing  through  a  man's  mind,  except  by  con- 
sidering his  actions,  including,  of  course,  his  statements.  A  man's 
intentions  are  to  be  gathered  from  his  acts.  A  man  must  be  held  to  have 
intended  the  natural  and  reasonable  consequences  of  his  act.  That  is  one 
184 


Lord  Chief  Justice's  Summing  Up. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

of  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  law,  and,  after  all,  it  is  only  plain 
common  sense.  When  a  man,  particularly  an  intelligent  man,  does  an 
act  which  would  appear  reasonably  to  involve  certain  consequences  you 
are  entitled  to  assume  that  he  intended  those  consequences.  You  there- 
fore have  to  ask  yourselves,  did  he  do  an  act  or  acts  of  the  nature  which 
I  have  described  to  you,  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  giving  aid 
and  comfort  to  the  King's  enemies?  And  you  must  ask  yourselves,  did 
he  intend  the  reasonable  consequences  of  this  act?  I  will  put  it  to  you 
again  so  that  you  may  understand  it  quite  clearly.  You  have  to  determine 
whether  the  prisoner  was  contriving  and  intending  to  aid  and  assist  the 
enemy.  If  what  he  did  was  calculated  to  aid  and  assist  the  enemy,  and 
he  knew  it  was  so  calculated,  then,  although  he  had  another  or  ulterior 
purpose  in  view,  he  was  contriving  and  intending  to  assist  the  enemy. 
It  is  necessary  you  should  pay  particular  attention  to  this  direction,  which 
is  a  direction  of  law  to  you.  The  questions  of  fact  upon  it,  of  course, 
you  will  determine  for  yourselves,  but  it  is  necessary  that  you  should 
understand  that  if  what  he  did  was  calculated  to  aid  the  enemy,  and  if 
he  knew  or  must  have  known  that  it  was  so  calculated,  then,  he  would  be 
contriving  and  intending  to  assist  the  enemy,  notwithstanding  that  he  had 
another  or  ulterior  purpose  in  view.  Let  me  put  it  to  you  in  another 
way.  If  he  knew  or  believed  that  the  G-erman  authorities  were  taking 
the  steps  they  did  in  collecting  the  Irish  prisoners  into  one  camp, 
distributing  literature  amongst  them,  forming  an  Irish  Brigade,  and 
providing  them  with  uniforms,  &c.,  for  their  own  purpose,  and  to  serve 
their  own  ends  in  the  war,  and  he  in  concert  with  them  was  promoting 
the  enterprise,  then  he  was  contriving  and  intending  to  assist  the  enemy, 
though  he  had  another  purpose  to  serve.  If  he  knew  or  believed  that 
the  Irish  Brigade  was  to  be  sent  to  Ireland  during  the  war  with  a  view 
to  securing  the  national  freedom  of  Ireland,  that  is,  to  engage  in  a  civil 
war  which  would  necessarily  weaken  and  embarrass  this  country,  then 
he  was  contriving  and  intending  to  assist  the  enemy.  Gentlemen,  I  trust 
I  have  made  clear  to  you  what  is  the  meaning  of  contriving  and  intending 
to  assist  the  enemy,  and  how  you  must  judge  it. 

I  propose  now  to  consider  very  briefly  the  evidence  which  has  been 
given.  Again,  I  must  point  out  to  you  that  the  statement  which  was 
made  by  the  prisoner  yesterday  was  a  statement  which  was  not  made  on 
oath,  and  it  is  right  that  I  should  also  tell  you  that  it  was  open  to  the 
prisoner,  if  he  chose  to  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity,  to  go  into 
the  witness-box  and  give  evidence.  Let  me  deal  with  the  facts.  I 
am  not  going  to  read  the  evidence  to  you,  because  in  substance,  except 
for  one  point  to  which  I  have  called  your  attention,  there  is  no  real 
dispute  about  it.  I  will  only  read  such  passages  as  deal  very  closely  with 
the  controversial  element.  I  am  now  going  to  direct  your  attention  to 
the  evidence  in  the  case  more  particularly  to  help  you  to  determine 
whether  the  inducements  held  out  by  the  prisoner  to  the  Irish  Brigade 
were  to  go  to  Ireland  after  the  war  had  come  to  a  close  in  order  to 
resist  the  domination  of  the  north  of  Ireland  party,  the  Volunteers,  or 
whether,  as  the  Crown  contends,  the  inducement  held  out  was  to  go  to 
Ireland  after  the  first  sea  victory  of  the  Germans  to  fight  England,  to  free 
Ireland  from  England,  and  with  the  assistance  of  Germany.  It  is  only 

185 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Lord  Chief  Justice 


in  regard  for  the  moment  to  that  question  that  I  am  going  to  read  to  you 
certain  passages  of  the  evidence. 

The  story  as  to  what  happened  is  now  quite  beyond  dispute.  At 
some  time  before  the  end  of  December,  1914,  the  prisoner  is  found  in 
Germany  whilst  Germany  is  engaged  in  this  gigantic  and  terrible  war  with 
this  country  among  others.  How  the  prisoner,  a  British  subject,  came 
there,  why  he  was1  there,  or  for  what  purpose  he  was  allowed  during  this 
time  to  remain  in  Germany,  if  he  was  there  any  time,  we  do  not  know. 
We  do  know  that  in  December,  1914,  there  had  been  a  number  of  soldiers 
taken  prisoner  during  the  war;  that  the  Irish  soldiers — men  supposed  to 
be  Irish,  as  one  witness  explained  it,  probably  meaning  that  everybody 
was  not  known  to  be  Irish,  but  generally  they  were — were  gathered 
together  in  one  camp.  You  have  heard  how  they  were  taken  from  par- 
ticular camps  and  brought  to  this  camp  at  Limburg  Lahn,  and  whilst  at 
that  camp  the  prisoner  came  to  them.  They  were  then  suffering  all  the 
torment  no  doubt  of  a  prisoner  of  war.  This  man  addressed  them.  I 
will  not  comment  upon  the  language  that  he  used.  I  will  read  it  to  you 
according  to  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses.  It  is  for  you  to  judge 
whether  that  language  was  not  calculated  and  intended  to  seduce  these  men 
from  allegiance  to  their  Sovereign.  You  may  ask,  and  not  unreasonably, 
how  comes  it  that  when  these  prisoners  are  s-egregated  into  the  one  camp 
that  the  prisoner,  Sir  Roger  Casement,  is  introduced  into  that  camp 
or  allowed  to  enter  into  it  by  the  Germans?  He  could  not  get  there 
without  their  permission.  He  was  there,  according  to  the  evidence, 
coming  and  going  freely  according  to  his  own  will,  and  addressing  these 
prisoners  of  war.  You  are  asked  to  believe  that  that  was  because  the 
Germans  thought  that  the  effect  of  his  addressing  them  might  be  that  a 
number  of  these  British  soldiers  would  become  members  of  the  brigade 
which  would  be  known  aa  the  Irish  Brigade,  formed  for  the  purpose,  at  any 
rate,  I  will  assume  for  the  moment,  of  being  taken  to  Ireland  and  of 
fighting  for  Ireland  only.  But  you  may  ask,  what  would  the  effect  of 
the  formation  of  that  brigade  be  upon  Germany  and  upon  the  British 
Empire?  The  Attorney-General  said  to  you,  apart  altogether  from  military 
effect,  that  the  mere  result  of  British  soldiers  having  formed  into  a  brigade 
in  Germany,  not  to  fight  for  England,  because  nobody  suggests  that,  but 
to  be  equipped  with  arms  and  ammunition  by  Germany,  and  then  to  go  to 
Ireland,  if  announced,  if  known,  must  create  injury  to  this  country;  that 
it  is  calculated  to  strengthen  Germany,  because  it  would  show  the  success 
that  had  happened  in  Germany  over  British  prisoners  of  war,  and  would 
tend  to  weaken  this  country,  because  it  would  be  shown  that  our  soldiers 
were  not  to  be  relied  upon,  and  that  when  they  were  taken  prisoners  of 
war  they  then  yielded  to  the  seduction  in  the  German  camp.  You  must 
consider  for  yourselves  whether  the  Attorney-General's  observations  are 
well  warranted  in  that  when  he  says,  "  Conceive  the  effect  either  upon 
"  belligerents  or  upon  neutrals  in  any  war,"  meaning,  conceive  the  effect  as 
reflected  upon  Germany  or  reflected  upon  England. 

Gentlemen,   the   passages    of   the   evidence   have   been   read   to   you, 

I  am  afraid,  more  than  once.       The  very  short  passages  to  which  I  am 

going  to  call  your  attention  I  read  because  they  are  so  important  on  this 

part  of  the  case.       Because  if  you  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  true 

186 


Lord   Chief  Justice's   Summing  Up. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

view  of  the  facts  is  that  the  prisoner  was  soliciting  and  attempting  to 
persuade  these  prisoners  of  war  to  join  the  Irish.  Brigade  to  be  landed  in 
Ireland  after  the  first  sea  victory  of  Germany,  and  if  you  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  that  does  not  mean  after  the  war  had  come  to  an  end, 
then,  you  will  probably  think  that  the  Attorney- General  ha®  made 
good  his  contention ;  and  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  you  to  come  to 
a  conclusion  on  that  that  I  read  these  very  short  passages.  Cronin  was 
called,  the  soldier.  This  is  his  statement1 — "  Sir  Roger  Casement  said 
"he  was  going  to  form  an  Irish  Brigade,  and  he  said,  'Why  live  in 
"  '  hunger  and  misery  in  this  camp  when  you  can  better  yourselves  by 
' '  '  joining  the  Irish  Brigade  which  I  am  going  to  form  •  you  will  be  sent 
"  '  to  Berlin  as  the  guests  of  the  German  Government.'  .  .  .  He  said 
"  in  the  event  of  Germany  winning  a  sea  battle  he  would  land  them  in 
"  Ireland,"  and  then,  according  to  the  shorthand  note,  "  and  Ireland  would 
"equip  them."  I  do  not  think  that  is  a  true  transcript  of  the  note. 
I  will  treat  it  as  struck  out,  and  read  it,  "  He  said  in  the  event  of 
"Germany  winning  a  eea  battle  he  would  land  them  in  Ireland."  It 
does  not  matter  for  the  purposes  of  the  case  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong. 

What  were  they  to  do  in  Ireland? — Free  Ireland. 
Did  he  say  who  they  were  to  fight  against? — Against  England. 
Did  he  say  what  would  happen  to  them  if  Germany  did  not  win?— They  would 
be  sent  to  America.      They  would  get  £10  or  £20  pocket  money  and  a  free  passage 

That  is  Cronin'e  statement.  You  remember  Cronin.  He  was  the  first 
of  the  soldiers  called.  You  remember  his  giving  evidence,  and  you  will 
judge  whether  there  is  anything  that  has  happened  in  this  case  which 
should  lead  you  to  disbelieve  Cronin.  You  must  judge  whether  his  evidence 
is  reliable  or  not.  Then  he  was  cross-examined.  The  use  of  cross- 
examination  is  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  you  to  test  the  evidence  of  the 
witness.  The  cross-examination  on  this  part  of  the  case  is  to  this  effect2 — 

Did  he  speak  of  raising  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Limburg  in  connection  with  the 
Irish  Volunteers  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  that  they  would  fight  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

That  they  were  to  fight  in  Ireland  ?— Yes. 

And  for  Ireland? — Yes. 

And  for  nobody  else  ? — For  nobody  else,  only  for  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  they  were  to  be  landed  in  Ireland  after  the  war  was  over  ? — No ;  in 
the  event  of  Germany  winning  a  sea  battle. 

In  the  event  of  Germany  winning  a  sea  battle  they  might  be  landed  before  the 
war  was  over? — The  war  could  not  be  over  till  the  sea  battle  was  won. 

Did  not  he  speak  of  Germany  having  won  the  war  before  the  brigade  was  to 
move  to  Ireland  ? — No. 

But  the  seas  were  to  be  clear  before  the  brigade  was  to  go  to  Ireland  ?— Yes. 

That  is  the  whole  of  the  evidence  of  Cronin  upon  this  point.  Gentle- 
men, when  you  are  considering  the  testimony  of  a  witness  you  may  think, 
and  it  is  entirely  for  you,  that  you  place  more  reliance  upon  the  actual 
words  used  by  the  witness  himself  than  words  which  are  put  into  his  mouth. 
That  is  entirely  for  you.  A  witness  comes,  and  he  tells  his  own  story 
in  his  own  language,  according  to  his  own  recollection,  and  then  questions 
are  put  to  him  perfectly  legitimately  and  properly  in  cross-examination 

1  P.  17.        2  P.  20. 

187 


Sir  Roger  Casement, 


Lord  Chief  Justice 


which,  may  be  a  variation  of  the  form  in  -which  the  witness  has  given  his 
answer.  You  have  to  consider  the  whole  of  the  evidence  together  and 
form  an  opinion  as  to  whether  his  statement  on  this  point  was  reliable  or 
not. 

The  next  witness  was  O'Brien.  His  evidence  upon  the  point  is  to  this 
effect.  He,  that  is  the  prisoner,  came  in  February,  1915.1 

I  heard  him  say,  "Now  is  the  time  for  Irishmen  to  fight  against  England;  now 
is  their  opportunity  for  doing  so,  join  the  Irish  Brigade."  He  said  he  came  to 
form  an  Irish  Brigade,  and  he  wanted  all  Irishmen  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade  and 
become  guests  of  the  German  Army.  He  said  that  if  they  were  successful  in 
winning  the  war  they  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade  along  with  the  German  Army 
in  Ireland,  and  they  would  fight  against  England  there.  If  Germany  did  not  win 
the  war,  then  they  would  be  sent  by  the  German  Government  to  America  with  a 
guarantee  of  £5  and  a  situation. 

You  must  consider  there  the  meaning  of  this  statement  if  you  accept 
it,  "  They  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade  with  the  German  Army  in  Ireland." 
Then  in  cross-examination  he  is  asked2 — 

In  what  you  did  hear,  did  he  speak  of  the  Irish  Brigade  fighting  in  Ireland  ? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  the  Irish  Brigade  would  be  used  in  Ireland  only? — In  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  they  were  to  be  transferred  to  Ireland  when  Germany  had  won  the 
war?— Yes. 

And  if  Germany  failed  to  win  the  war  they  should  go  to  America  ?— To 
America,  yes. 

Then,  again,  in  re-examination3 — 

He  said  the  Irish  Brigade  were  to  fight  in  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  who  were  to  take  them  to  Ireland  to  fight? — The  German  Army. 

Did  he  say  against  whom  they  were  to  fight?— To  fight  against  England. 

That  is  the  evidence  of  O'Brien.  The  next  witness  is  John  Robinson. 
He  says4 — 

He  said  he  was  very  glad  to  see  so  many  Irishmen  here,  that  now  was  our 
time  to  fight  for  Ireland  and  strike  a  blow,  and  he  hoped  we  would  all  join  the 
Irish  Brigade. 

Examination  continued — Did  he  say  with  whom  the  Irish  Brigade  were  going  to 
fight? — Fight  against  England.  He  said  that  if  Germany  had  a  victory  on  the  sea 
they  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade  in  Ireland. 

Then  in  cross-examination5 — 

How  long  was  Sir  Roger  Casement  speaking  on  the  occasions  you  have  detailed  to 
us— the  first  time  you  heard  him  speak,  for  instance  ? — About  a  quarter  of  an  hour  to 
twenty  minutes. 

He  wanted  you  to  join  an  Irish  Brigade? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  that  the  Irish  Brigade  was  to  fight  for  Ireland? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  it  was  to  fight  in  Ireland  ? — Yes. 

And  did  he  address  you?  Did  he  say  it  was  to  go  to  Ireland  when  the 
Germans  had  won  the  war? — No,  he  said  if  Germany  had  a  victory  on  sea. 

Did  he  speak  about  Germany  winning  the  war? — Yes. 

What  did  he  say  about  Germany  winning  the  war? — He  always  said  that 
Germany  would  win,  but  we  contradicted  him  and  said  they  would  not. 

I  suggest  to  you  that  he  represented  when  Germany  had  won  the  war  that  the 
Irish  Brigade  was  to  go  to  Ireland  unless  there  was  a  victory  at  sea  meantime. 
Was  that  what  he  said? — I  cannot  remember  that.  I  remember  him  saying  if 
Germany  had  a  victory  on  sea  he  would  land  us  in  Ireland. 

But  there  is  no  doubt  it  was  in  Ireland  you  were  to  serve  ? — Oh,  yes,  at  that  time. 


1  P.  23.        2  P.  24.        3  P.  25.        4  P.  26.        5  P.  27. 

188 


Lord  Chief  Justice's   Summing  Up. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

Then  there  is  one  further  passage  in  re-examination1 — 

Did  he  say  who  would  send  the  Irish  Brigade  to  Ireland? — Germany  would  send 
us  to  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  what  they  were  to  do  when  they  got  there? — Free  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  whether  they  would  have  any  fighting  to  do? — He  did  not  go  into- 
that ;  he  said  it  was  to  free  Ireland  when  they  got  there. 

Did  he  say  from  whom  they  were  to  free  Ireland? — From  England. 

Then  there  was  one  more  witness,  Michael  O'Connor2 — 
Can  you  tell  us  anything  you  heard  him  say  ? — He  said,  "  Now  is  the  time  to  fight 
"or  strike  a  blow  for  Ireland,"  and  that  England  was  nearly  beaten. 

Then  there  was  some  evidence  about  hissing  and  booing  him  along 
the  lines. 

Did  he  make  any  remark  to  those  that  hissed  him  and  booed  him? — He  said 
those  who  hissed  him  were  followers  of  Johnnie  Redmond,  the  recruiting  sergeant 
of  the  British  Army. 

That  is  a  statement  by  the  witness  which  did  not  seem  to  have  so 
much  force  when  it  was  made  in  the  witness-box.  It  is  not  so  unimportant. 
It  is  for  you  to  consider  whether  that  was  said,  because  if  it  was  said, 
that  is  to  say,  "  Those  who  hissed  him  were  followers  of  Johnnie  Redmond, 
"  the  recruiting  sergeant  of  the  British  Army,"  it  does  not  seem  quite  to 
tally  with  the  suggestion  that  is  made  that  the  prisoner  was  seeking  to 
obtain  recruits  for  the  Irish  Volunteers  to  resist  attacks  or  domination 
by  the  Ulster  Volunteers  in  Ireland  after  the  war.  That  is  a  matter  for 
your  consideration.  I  merely  make  the  observation  to  you,  this  reference 
to  Johnnie  Redmond,  "  the  recruiting  sergeant  of  the  British  Army."  Then 
he  is  cross-examined3 — 

If  England  was  nearly  beaten,  was  not  it  in  the  context  that  the  war  was. 
nearly  over? — Yes. 

Do  you  assent  to  that? — I  assent  to  that. 

The  war  being  nearly  over,  he  was  recruiting  an  Irish  Brigade? — Yes. 

Then  the  next  witness  is  Michael  Moore4 — 

He  also  said  the  first  German  victory  on  the  water  he  would  land  the  Brigade 
in  Ireland. 

Did  he  say  what  kind  of  victory? — Naval  victory.  The  Irish  Brigade  were  to 
be  landed  in  Ireland. 

And  then  he  said  he  expected,  and  I  stopped  him  and  said  he  must  not 
tell  us  what  he  expected,  and  he  said,  "  He  said  he  would  land  them  in 
"  Ireland."  Then  in  cross-examination  he  says5 — 

Apparently,  Sir  Roger  Casement  discussed  what  was  to  happen  to  the  Irish 
Brigade  if  Germany  lost  the  war,  did  not  he? — Yes. 

In  that  event  the  Irish  Brigade  would  go  to  America? — Yes. 

If  Germany  lost  the  war?  I  suggest  to  you  that  he  said  that  he  would  land 
them  in  Ireland  if  Germany  won  the  war? — If  there  was  a  sea  battle,  and  if 
Germany  came  out  victorious  in  the  first  sea  battle  he  would  land  the  Irish  Brigade 
in  Ireland. 

Was  there  no  reference  to  Home  Rule  in  the  event  of  Germany  winning  the 
war ;  was  there  no  reference  to  Home  Rule  ? — There  was  one,  that  Germany  would 
give  Ireland  Home  Rule. 

If  she  won  the  war? — If  she  won  the  war. 

But  do  you  tell  me  that  there  was  no  reference  to  Home  Rule  to  be  won  by 
the  Irish  Brigade?— No. 

Are  you  sure  of  that? — I  have  never  heard  him  say  it. 

JP.  29.         2  P.  32.         3P.  33.         4P.  34.         5  P.  34. 

189 


Sir  Roger  Casement, 


Lord  Chief  Justice 


That  is  all  that  there  is  in  this  connection.  I  will  not  read  Neill's 
evidence. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  have  got  really  the  whole  of  the  evidence  which 
you  need  consider  upon  this  point.  It  is  not  suggested  to  you  that  you 
should  disbelieve  these  witnesses  entirely.  Indeed,  Mr.  Sullivan  has  told 
you  that  he  accepts  in  the  main  the  evidence  that  was  given,  and  the  only 
point  upon  which  he  does  ask  you  to  disregard  their  evidence  is  as  to  that 
part  of  it  in  which  they  say  that  they  were  to  be  landed  in  Ireland  if 
Germany  or  as  soon  as  Germany  won  a  eea  victory.  Mr.  Sullivan  argued 
that  that  really  meant  the  same  thing  as  saying  "  If  the  war  was  over." 
But  it  ie  clear  at  any  rate  that  that  was  not  the  view  of  the  soldiers,  or 
some  of  them,  because  of  the  answers  which  I  have  read,  and  of  which  you 
will  judge,  because  when  the  question  is  put  to  them  about  the  close  of  the 
'war,  at  least  one  or  two  said,  "  Oh,  no,  not  at  the  close  of  the  war,  if 
"  Germany  won  the  first  sea  victory." 

In  this  connection  there  is  one  document  to  which  I  must  call  your 
attention.  It  isi  a  document  as  to  which  there  was  some  controversy  during 
the  course  of  the  trial,  the  document  known  as  exhibit  No.  4.  It  is  a  leaflet 
which  was  distributed.  There  is  no  evidence  in  this  case  directly  connecting 
Sir  Roger  Casement  with  this  document.  There  is  evidence  that  after  Sir 
Roger  Casement  had  come  upon  the  scene  and  had  made  a  speech  or  speeches 
of  the  character  stated  in  the  evidence  that  this  leaflet  was  distributed 
amongst  the  Irish  prisoners  of  war  in  Limburg  Camp.  There  is 
evidence  that  some  of  these  leaflets  were  posted  up  in  the  barrack  room. 
There  is  evidence  that  the  men  gathered  round  and  read  them.  There  is 
evidence  that  German  soldiers  brought  this  leaflet  in  and  introduced  it  in  the 
camp.  You  will  remember  that  evidence.  I  am  not  proposing  therefore  to 
read  it  to  you.  But  this  is  the  leaflet,  and  in  considering  whether  or  not 
the  prisoner  was  acting  with  Germany  for  the  purpose  of  seducing  these 
men  from  their  allegiance  you  must  take  into  account  this  document  given 
in  evidence,  that  is  to  say,  it  is  a  matter  which  you  must  consider.  Discard 
it  if  you  like.  If  you  think  right  to  say,  "  Well,  we  are  not  satisfied  upon 
"  this,  that  Sir  Roger  Casement  had  anything  to  do  with  it,  or  knew  of  it," 
you  are  quite  entitled,  then,  if  you  come  to  that  conclusion,  to  disregard  it. 
But  equally,  if  you  think,  looking  at  the  matter  fairly,  and  drawing  a  fair 
and  reasonable  inference  from  the  circumstances  stated  in  the  evidence, 
that,  although  it  was  distributed  by  Germans  after  Sir  Roger  Casement  came 
upon  the  scene,  it  wasi  part  of  the  plan  of  operations  between  the  Germans 
and  the  prisoner  Casement,  then,  you  must  take  it  into  your  iserious 
consideration . 

This  is  the  language  of  it — "  Irishmen,  here  is  a  chance  for  you  to  fight 

"  for  Ireland !   You  have  fought  for  England,   your  country's   hereditary 

enemy.    You  have  fought  for  Belgium  in  England's  interest,  though  it  was 

no  more  to  you  than  the  Fiji  Islands !     Are  you  willing  to  fight  for  your 

own  country  with  a  view  to  securing  the  national  freedom  of  Ireland? 

With  the  moral  and  material  assistance  of  the  German  Government  an 

Irish    Brigade   is    being   formed " — you    must   consider   that   passage— 

with    a    view    to    securing    the    national    freedom    of  Ireland."       You 

must    consider    whether    that    meant    to    free    Ireland    from     England 

during    the    war,     or    whether    it    meant    only    to     free    one    political 

190 


Lord  Chief  Justice's   Summing  Up. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

party,  what  I  may  call  the  Home  Rule  Party  in  Ireland,  and  all  those 
persons  in  Ireland  who  held  the  same  view,  from  the  domination  of  the 
Ulster  movement  in  Ireland,  which  is  what  is  suggested :  whether  that 
simply  meansi — it  is  the  object  of  every  man  to  secure  his  own  freedom 
so  that  he  may  defend  himself  against  Volunteers  who  may  be  marching 
up  and  down,  as  you  have  heard  described,  in  the  country  and  possibly 
over  the  lands  of  these  persons.  "With  a  view  to  securing  the  national 
"  freedom  of  Ireland,  with  the  moral  and  material  assistance  of  the  German 
"  Government  an  Irish  Brigade  is  being  formed."  That  seems  to  show 
beyond  all  doubt  on  the  face  of  the  document  that  there  was  material 
assistance  of  the  German  Government.  Then  oomes  this  passage — "  The 
"  object  of  the  Irish  Brigade  shall  be  to  fight  solely  the  cause  of  Ireland, 
"  and  under  no  circumstances  shall  it  be  directed  to  any  German  end." 
What  is  suggested  and  what  you  have  to  consider  is,  that  may  be  a  very 
good  way  of  getting  Irishmen  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade,  particularly  men 
who  had  been  soldiers,  with  the  notion  that  they  would  only  be  fighting 
for  Ireland.  You  must  consider  whether  if  a  man  was  fighting  for  Ireland 
during  the  war  it  was  possible  to  do  that  against  England  without  giving 
aid  and  comfort  to  the  King's  enemies.  You  will  come  to  a  conclusion  as 
to  what  you  think  that  means.  Then  it  proceeds — "  The  Irish  Brigade 
"  shall  be  formed,  and  shall  fight  under  the  Irish  flag  alone;  the  men  shall 
"wear  a  special  distinctively  Irish  uniform  and  have  Irish  officers.  The 
"  Irish  Brigade  shall  be  clothed,  fed,  and  efficiently  equipped  with  arms 
"  and  ammunition  by  the  German  Government.  It  will  be  stationed  near 
"Berlin,  and  be  treated  as  guests  of  the  German  Government."  You 
must  ask  yourselves,  again,  why  Germany  should  be  ready  to  feed  and 
equip  and  clothe  these  men,  provide  them  with  uniforms,  and  with  arms 
and  with  ammunition,  if  the  sole  object  of  the  Brigade  was  to  resist  the 
march  and  counter-march  and  domination  of  an  opposed  political  party, 
of  the  Ulster  Volunteers.  It  is  not  very  easy  to  understand  what  the  sug- 
gestion is  with  regard  to  that.  You  must  consider  it  for  yourselves.  Why 
should  Germany  be  ready  to  do  this?  If  it  was  to  happen  during  the  war, 
it  is  comprehensible,  enough.  It  would  be  to  the  interest  of  Germany, 
because  it  would  be  sowing  seeds  of  dissension  of  the  strongest  kind  in 
Ireland.  But  why,  if  it  was  only  to  happen  after  the  war,  when  war 
between  this  country  and  Germany  had  come  to  an  end,  Germany  should 
be  interested  in  doing  these  acts  to  enable,  what  I  may  call  for  brevity, 
Home  Rulers  to  get  the  benefit  of  the  Home  Rule  Act,  is  not  quite  easy 
to  understand.  There  it  is.  It  is  for  you  to  consider.  Then,  "  At  the 
"  end  of  the  war  the  German  Government  undertakes  to  send  each  member 
"  of  the  Brigade  who  may  so  desire  it  to  the  United  States  of  America 
"  with  necessary  means  to  land.  The  Irishmen  in  America  are  collecting 
"  money  for  the  Brigade.  Those  men  who  do  not  join  the  Irish  Brigade 
"  will  be  removed  from  Limburg  and  distributed  among  other  camps.  If 
"  interested,  see  your  company  commanders.  Join  the  Irish  Brigade  and 
"  win  Ireland's  independence !  Remember  Bachelor's  Walk !  God  save 
"  Ireland !  " 

Gentlemen,  that  really  is  the  whole  of  the  evidence  to  which  it  is  neces- 
sary that  I  should  call  your  attention  on  these  first  five  overt  acts  which  are 
connected  with  what  I  have  termed  compendiously  the  Irish  Brigade 

191 


Sir  Roger  Casement, 


Lord  Chief  Justice 


incident.  I  now  proceed  to  deal  with  the  evidence  as  regards  the  April,  1916, 
incidents.  Before  I  do  so,  let  me  tell  you  that  the  mere  fact  that  the 
prisoner  had,  by  the  acts  proved  in  the  evidence,  committed  an  offence  or 
offences  against  the  law  is  not  relevant  to  this  charge.  The  facts  relating  to 
the  21st  April,  and  for  the  few  days  thereafter,  are  only  material  to  this 
charge  if  you  think  that  these  acts  were  committed  in  concert  with  Germany 
in  pursuance  of  a  plan  of  operations  formed  in  Germany.  If  you  come  to 
that  conclusion,  then  these  acts  are  directly  material  on  the  charge  of  treason. 
Now,  the  first  incident  is  on  the  night  between  the  20th  and  21st 
April.  There  is  the  finding  of  the  boat  and  the  seeing  of  the  light.  A 
light  is  seen  about  half -past  nine  on  the  Thursday  night,  whatever  it  is. 
We  know  no  more  than  that.  On  the  morning  of  Good  Friday,  the 
2 1st  April,  McCarthy,  the  farmer,  the  man  who  had  been  to  the  well  to 
eay  his  prayers,  noticed  the  boat;  he  also  found  the  tin  box  which  had 
been  covered  with  earth,  according  to  his  statement,  but  from  which  the 
earth  had  been  displaced;  he  also  saw  the  footprints  of  three  men;  he 
traced  them  going  in  the  direction  of  his  house  from  the  sea.  Later  he 
found  his  little  girl,  about  eight  years  of  age,  playing  with  revolvers. 
There  are  the  bags  which  are  discovered  shortly  after.  In  those  bags 
there  was  the  green  flag  which  was  produced  to  you,  and  a  piece  of  a 
map,  and  in  other  bags  other  portions  of  a  map  of  Ireland.  Mary  Gorman, 
at  about  half-past  four  in  the  morning,  saw  three  strange  men  passing, 
going  from  the  sea  and  going  towards  Ardfert.  She  identified  one  of  the 
men  as  the  prisoner,  and  said  they  were  carrying  overcoats.  Where  the 
boat  came  from  we  do  not  know.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show  how 
that  boat  had  got  to  the  point  where  it  was  found.  You  have  seen  the 
photograph  of  it.  You  realise  the  kind  of  boat  it  is.  It  was  there 
with  the  ammunition  and  the  pistoLs  and  the  other  things,  again  there  is 
nothing  to  show  except  the  evidence  of  their  being  found  as  described  to 
you  by  the  witnesses.  The  tin  box  contained  some  900  rounds  of  pistol 
ammunition.  There  was  a  flash  lamp,  field  glasses,  40  rounds  of  ammuni- 
tion in  a  bag,  and  three  pistols. 

I  do  not  propose  to  follow  through  the  incidents  of  taking  the  various 
things  that  were  found  to  the  police  station.  It  really  does  not  help. 
That  is  all  for  the  purpose  merely  of  identification.  Later  on  the  prisoner 
is  found  at  about  twenty  minutes  past  one  in  the  afternoon  of  21st  April, 
Good  Friday,  at  M'Kenna's  Fort.  But  before  that  the  two  officers,  Riley 
and  Sergeant  Hearn,  had  loaded  their  carbines  and  gone  out  to  search 
the  country.  After  searching  the  country  for  some  little  time  they  came 
to  M'Kenna's  Fort,  which  you  have  heard  described  to  you.  It  seems  to 
be  a  circular  Irish  ruin.  It  was  described  as  with  trenches  round  it,  or 
a  trench  9  to  14  feet  deep,  and  covered  with  brushwood.  Riley  has  told 
you  that  he  saw  the  prisoner,  that  he  covered  him  with  his  rifle,  and  that 
thereupon  he  was  asked  who  he  was,  and  he  gave  the  name  of  Richard 
Morton,  Denham,  Bucks.  He  said  he  had  arrived  at  Dublin,  came  on  to 
County  Kerry,  then  to  Mount  Brandon,  and  from  there  to  the  fort,  and 
had  arrived  there,  that  is,  at  the  fort,  in  the  morning,  and  said  he  intended 
to  go  to  Tralee.  The  whole  of  this  incident  requires  your  careful 
examination  and  consideration.  You  must  ask  yourselves  why  was  it 
192 


'Send  another,  ship  to  -  ^       „ 

S'g'^d  rifles  and  amunitijon  fo    - 

Cannons f with  plenty  of  akiunltion  are  needegsend  them  t 
,  more  explosives  ', 

v03s&l:lf-possrible       • 


The  writing  in  pencil  on  the  back  of  the  code  described  in 
Constable  Riley's  evidence. 


Lord  Chief  Justice's  Summing  Up, 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

that  the  prisoner  arrived  in  this  way  in  Ireland?  Why  was  it  he  arrived 
in  this  boat  with  this  ammunition,  and  was  found  afterwards  at  this  fort 
where,  according  to  his  own  statement,  he  had  been  for  some  hours,  and 
why  did  he  give  a  false  name?  The  boy  Collins  who>  was  called  before 
you  told  you  about  the  piece  of  paper  that  he  saw  drop  from  the  prisoner's 
hand  at  his  back,  and  it  was  subsequently  picked  up  by  the  boy.  He 
went  on  with  his  pony  and  trap,  as  he  was  told  to  do,  or  asked  to  do,  I 
think,  to  Mary  Gorman's  for  the  purpose  of  Mary  Gorman  identifying  the 
prisoner  as  one  of  the  three  men  she  had  seen.  Then  he  goes  back  at 
some  later  stage  with  another  boy,  or  has  another  boy  with  him,  Tom 
Doone,  and  he  tells  Doone  to  pick  up  that  piece  of  paper  which  was, 
he  says,  where  it  had  been  dropped ;  it  was  given  to  him,  and  then  he 
took  it  back  and  handed  it  to  the  police.  That  piece  of  paper  is  exhibit  18, 
of  which  you  have  a  photograph.  That  is  the  code.  You  remember  the 
evidence  about  that  code.  There  are  the  figures  first,  and  then  the  words 
in  English  showing  what  the  figures  meant.  You  have  heard  the  criticism 
which  has  been  passed  upon  that  code  by  the  Attorney-General.  Reference 
has  been  made  to  the  various  orders  that  there  are,  or  requests,  and  you 
are  asked  to  say  that  that  cannot  have  been  done  with  any  innocent 
intention,  but,  moreover,  and  what  is  more  material  and  important,  can 
only  have  been  done  in  concert  with  Germany,  and  that  the  object  of 
this  code,  and  of  the  carrying  of  this  code  by  the  prisoner,  was  to  enable 
him  to  send  messages  somewhere  to  some  one  which  could  not  be  given 
openly,  which  had  to  be  given  in  a  code  which  nobody  could  understand, 
and  therefore  these  figures  were  adopted  in  the  code  so  that  the  person 
receiving  them  should  know  what  was  meant  and  nobody  else.  Your 
attention  was  directed  to  just  a  few  of  the  sentences  or  part  sentences — 
"  Further  ammunition  is  needed.  Further  rifles  are  needed.  How  many 
"rifles  will  you  send  us?  How  much  ammunition  will  you  send  us? 
:c  Will  send  plan  about  landing.  Await  details  about  sending.  Send 
11  another  ship  to  .  Send  rifles  and  ammunition.  Cannons 

"  and    plenty   of    ammunition    are  needed.        Send    them.        Send  more 
"  explosives.       Send  vessel  if  possible." 

Those  are  some  of  the  salient  features  of  this  code.  Then  there  is 
the  statement,  which  is  rather  difficult  to  decipher,  at  the  back  of  the 
document,  which  says — "  This  holds  good  from  22nd  April  till  20th  May. 
"If  by  then  no  news,  friends'  station  will  be  closed  for  good,  after  that 
"  only  by  cable  to,"  then  an  address,  Davos  Village,  Switzerland.  You 
must  ask  yourselves  what  is  the  meaning  of  that?  Why  was  the  prisoner 
carrying  it?  And,  more  important,  why  did  he  drop  it  in  that  way  when 
the  police  arrested  him?  There  was  also  evidence  of  the  finding  of  a 
piece  of  paper  at  the  place  where  he  had  been,  which  has  no  relevancy 
to  the  matter  into  which  you  are  inquiring,  except  that  it  is  written  in 
German  characters  and  in  the  German  language.  Then  there  is  further 
the  finding  of  the  sleeping  car  ticket  from  Berlin  to  Wilhelmshaven. 
That  is  a  ticket  for  the  night  of  the  llth  to  the  12th  April,  and  is  quite 
clearly  a  ticket  issued  by  the  German  railway,  and  apparently  to  Wilhelms- 
haven. That  was  found,  you  will  remember,  in  the  pocket  of  one  of 
three  overcoats.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  that  was  the  prisoner 
o  193 


Sir   Roger  Casement. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

Casement's  overcoat.  It  is  only  evidence  that  it  is  one  of  the  three. 
You  will  also  bear  in  mind  in  this  connection  that  there  was  some  evidence 
— you  must  judge  of  the  value  of  it — that  in  the  figures  on  the  code 
which  were  to  be  used  as  the  cypher,  the  "  7  "  is  a  German  "  7,"  or  at 
least  a  "  7  "  such  as  is  usually  written  in  German.  It  is  rather  striking 
if  you  look  through  it,  as  I  have  no  doubt  you  have  done,  that  all  these 
"  7's  "  are  made  in  that  particular  way,  and  certainly  not  as  a  "  7  "  is 
usually  written  in  this  country. 

From  all  that  evidence  you  are  asked  to  draw  the  inference,  and  if 
you  think  right  you  are  entitled  to  draw  the  inference,  that  the  prisoner 
had  come  from  Germany;  that  he  was  acting  in  concert  with  the  Germans. 
In  this  connection  you  naturally  would  ask  yourselves,  how  is  it  that 
Germany  allowed  this  man,  and  at  least  one  other,  who  has  been  identified, 
and  who  was  in  the  Irish  Brigade,  to  leave  Germany  and  to  land,  if  you 
are  satisfied  they  did  land,  from  that  boat  on  this  wild  seashore  in 
Ireland  ?  The  suggestion  made  to  you  is  that,  of  course,  it  was  permitted 
because  it  was  part  of  the  plan  of  operation. 

Later  in  the  day  of  the  2 list  April,  somewhere  about  six  o'clock  in 
the  evening,  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  about  90  miles  from  the  southern 
coast  of  Ireland,  the  vessel  "  Aud  "  is  discovered.  She  was  sighted  by 
H.M.S.  "  Bluebell  "  off  the  south-west  coast.  She  was  painted  with 
Norwegian  colours,  two  forward  and  two  aft.  She  was  signalled  by  the 
"  Bluebell,"  and  she  replied  that  she  was  bound  for  Genoa  from  Bergen. 
The  "  Bluebell  "  thereupon  told  her  to  follow.  You  remember  the 
incident,  the  firing  of  the  shot  across  her  bows,  and  then  she  followed. 
The  "  Bluebell"  was  taking  her  to  Queenstown.  Queenstown  was  about 
138  miles,  as  was  described,  to  the  east  of  the  spot  where  the  lc  Aud  " 
was  found.  Due  east  clearly  not,  as  Mr.  Sullivan  was  quite  right  in 
contending.  It  is  apparent  to  any  one  with  very  little  knowledge  of  Ire- 
land that  this  vessel  would  have  to  go  further  to  the  southward  and  then 
turn  to  the  east  to  get  to  Queenstown.  Then  when  she  is  within  3J  miles 
of  Queenstown  she  seemed  to  stop  her  engines,  and  then  a  cloud  of  white 
smoke  appeared ;  two  boats  were  lowered ;  flags  of  truce  were  carried  in 
these  boats;  in  these  boats  were  twenty  German  bluejackets  and  three 
officers,  two  of  them  being  identified  as  German  naval  officers;  and  they 
are  taken  on  board  the  "  Bluebell  "  as  prisoners  of  war.  Within  a  very 
few  minutes,  some  ten  minutes,  of  the  cloud  of  white  smoke  being  seen 
the  "  Aud  "  blows  up  and  sinks.  We  have  the  evidence  of  Dempsey, 
the  diver,  of  what  he  found  when  he  went  there,  I  think,  on  10th  May  or 
about  that  time.  He  produced  to  us  here  in  Court  a  rifle  which,  he  said, 
was  typical  of  a  number  of  rifles  which  he  saw  there,  not  pledging  himself 
to  this  one  rifle  being  exactly  like  the  others,  but  he  said  all  similar  in 
pattern ;  and  that  has  been  identified  by  the  colonel  in  the  Russian  Army 
as  a  rifle  of  the  Imperial  Service  of  Russia  made  in  the  year  1905.  A 
cartridge  and  clip  were  also  produced  to  us.  The  clip  is  made  in  Russia, 
and  identified  as  being  the  clip  that  was  used  by  the  Imperial  Service. 
The  cartridge  is  not  identified  because,  as  the  colonel  told  us,  it  has  not 
the  marks  on  it  which  he  would  expect  to  find  if  it  had  been  made  in  the 
Russian  Service;  but  it  is  a  cartridge  which  he  says  would  fit  the  Russian 
194 


Lord  Chief  Justice's  Summing  Up. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

rifle.  Rifle  butts  were  found,  and  one  of  them  was  produced  to  you 
here  in  Court.  A  bayonet  sheath  was  also  produced,  of  which,  as  far  as 
one  knows,  there  is  very  little  evidence.  It  seems  to  have  oome  from 
South  America,  but,  at  any  rate,  we  do  not  know.  That  is  the  safest 
way  to  put  it.  I  ought  to  have  told  you — it  comes  in  at  this  moment — 
that  just  before  the  vessel  sank  and  before  the  white  smoke  was  seen  to 
issue — about  that  time — two  flags  were  broken  at  the  masthead,  and  they 
were  then  seen  to  be  German  naval  ensigns. 

Upon  that  evidence  you  are  asked  to  conclude  that  this  vessel  was 
not  a  vessel  bound  from  Bergen  to  Genoa,  but  that  she  was,  in  fact,  a 
German  vessel,  or  a  vessel  used  for  German  purposes,  and  that  she  was 
painted  with  Norwegian  colours  in  order  to  deceive  the  ever-vigilant 
British  Navy;  that  she  was  engaged  in  an  operation  of  landing 
arms  and  ammunition  in  Ireland,  because  besides  the  cartridge  that  was 
produced,  Dempsey  told  us  there  were  thousands  of  cartridges  which  he 
saw  lying  by  the  ship  when  he  went  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea.  He  was 
only  able  to  conduct  hi®  operations  for  one  day,  or  at  one  time,  because 
the  weather  got  very  bad,  and  then  he  had  to  abandon  it.  But  that  is 
what  he  told  you  he  saw.  He  described  it  as  "  thousands  of  cartridges 
"lying  about  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  ship/'  and  the  question  for 
you  upon  this  is,  whether  you  think  right  to  draw  the  inference  that 
this  vessel  was  engaged  in  this  operation  for  the  Germans  of  landing 
arms  and  ammunition  in  Ireland.  It  is  said  she  was  not  going  to  Genoa. 
What  would  she  be  doing  at  Genoa  with  these  old  rifles  and  ammunition? 
Why  was  she  painted  in  this  way?  When  you  get  the  two  naval  ensigns 
at  the  masthead,  at  least,  it  makes  it  quite  plain  that  she  was:  engaged 
in  German  and  naval  matters.  If  there  remained  any  doubt  about  it,  the 
fact  that  twenty  German  bluejackets  and  two  officers  were  on  board  and 
taken  prisoner®  of  war,  puts  the  matter  beyond  all  doubt. 

You  may  very  naturally  say  to  yourselves,  well,  how  perfectly  absurd 
to  suggest  that  a  vessel  of  this  kind  was  going  from  Bergen  to  Genoa 
carrying  these  German  sailors,  naval  men,  and  German  officers  with  all  this 
ammunition.  Of  course,  if  this  vessel  were  found  hundreds  or  thousands 
of  mile®  from  Ireland  that  would  not  justify  you  in  coming  to  the  con- 
clusion that  they  were  intended  for  Ireland,  but  when  she  is  found,  as  she 
was,  90  miles  from  the  south-west  coast  of  Ireland  on  the  evening  of  this 
very  21st  April,  Good  Friday,  you  probably  will  ask  yourselves,  was  it 
a  pure  coincidence  that  that  vessel  happened  to  be  there  so  soon  after  the 
prisoner  Casement  and  another  man  had  been  seen  in  Ireland  with  all  the 
attendant  circumstances-  which  I  have  already  described  to  you,  and  which 
you  have  heard  stated  in  evidence?  The  Crown  says  to  you  it  is  not  a 
coincidence.  The  Crown  says  this  is  part  of  the  concerted  operation  which 
was  then  taking  place ;  it  was  all  in  pursuance  of  the  scheme,  of  a  similar 
scheme  which  had  been  formed  from  December,  1914,  to  February,  1915, 
and  .onwards,  when  these  speeches  were  made  by  the  prisoner,  to  get  Irish 
soldiers  to  join  the  Irish  Brigade.  They  suggest  to  you  that  this  is  not 
a  mere  chance,  that  Germany  should  just  at  that  moment  and  on  that  day 
have  been  engaged  in  landing  arms  or  in  attempting  to  land  arms  and 
ammunition  at  some  point  on  the  coast  of  Ireland.  It  is  not  suggested, 
and  certainly  the  evidence  does  not  establish,  that  this  vessel  was  going  to 

195 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

Tralee.  But  that  really  does  not  matter  at  all.  It  is  quite  immaterial 
to  what  points  in  Ireland  she  was  going  if  you  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
she  was  making  for  Ireland  and  intending  to  land  there  when  she  found  a 
favourable  opportunity  in  order  to  put  her  arms  and  ammunition  on  the 
shore.  That  matter  is*  entirely  one  for  you.  It  is  purely  a  matter  of 
fact.  I  can  give  you  no  direction  on  law  about  it  except  the  one  I  have 
already  given  to  you,  and  that  is,  that  if  on  this  evidence  you  think  fit  to 
draw  the  inference  the  Crown  asks  you  to  draw,  you  are  entitled  to  do  it.  If 
you  think  that  it  is  not  sufficient,  you  are  entitled  to  reject  it.  It  is 
entirely  for  you. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  only  other  incident  in  connection  with  this 
matter  that  is  worth  referring  to  is  the  maps.  We  have  not  examined 
them,  but  they  are  here  in  Court.  There  are  a  number  of  portions  of  a 
map  of  Ireland  which  were  put  together  by  Colonel  Gordon,  and,  as  he 
has  told  you,  they  contain  evidence,  according  to  the  view  that  he  pre- 
sented to  you,  that  they  were  not  made  in  this  country,  because  he  said 
the  meridian  was  numbered  from  Ferro,  and  not  from  Greenwich,  and  also 
because  the  scale  was  slightly  different  from  that  adopted  in  this  country. 
The  meridian  of  Ferro,  he  told  us,  is  used  in  the  maps  of  Central  Europe, 
and  that  is  as  far  as  we  can  get  with  it,  and  there  we  must  leave  it. 
It  all  forms  part  and  parcel  of  the  one  story  which  is  suggested  to 
you  in  connection  with  this  matter,  and  if  on  consideration,  having 
regard  to  the  evidence  that  has  been  given,  drawing  such  inferences  as 
you  think  are  fair  and  reasonable  inferences  to  b©  drawn  in  the  circum- 
stances, you  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  position  of  the  "  Aud  "  at 
this  time,  really  synchronising  as  it  did  with  the  advent  of  the  prisoner  a 
little  earlier  in  the  morning  on  the  coast  of  Curraghane,  all  pointed  to  an 
attempt  to  land,  arms  and  ammunition  for  the  purpose  of  assisting 
Germany  by  helping  those  who  wished  either  to  create  discontent,  or,  it 
might  be,  to  rebel  in  Ireland,  and  that  if  there  were  such  persons,  and 
Germany  could  manage  to  land  her  arms  and  ammunition  at  that  time,  it 
would  all  be  very  useful,  and  would  assist  in  that  way,  and  consequently 
would  be  a  weakening  of  the  forces  of  the  King,  then  you  would  draw  the 
inference  the  Crown  asks  you  to  draw.  That  is  the  (substance  of  this 
matter,  and  it  is  not  necessary  that  I  should  read  to  you  in  any  detail  or 
at  any  length  the  evidence  upon  it. 

Gentlemen,  that  really  concludes  the  whole  of  the  evidence  in  this 
case.  I  have  already  said  to  you  all  that  I  think  it  necessary  to  say  upon 
the  law.  I  shall  not  repeat  it.  I  will  conclude  only  by  impressing  upon 
you  that  if  you  have  a  reasonable  doubt  in  the  matter  after  considering 
the  evidence  it  is  your  duty  to  acquit  the  prisoner.  But  if,  after  viewing 
all  the  facts  and  circumstances,  the  conviction  is  borne  in  upon  you  that 
this  prisoner  has  committed  the  offence  with  which  he  is  charged,  then, 
gentlemen,  it  is  your  duty  to  return  a  verdict  to  that  effect,  and  to  take  no 
regard  of  the  consequences  which  must  follow.  Will  you  consider  your 
verdict  1 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORY — Gentlemen,  if  you  want  any  of  the  exhibits  that 
have  be^n  referred  to  you  can  have  them  by  asking. 

The  jury  retired  at  2.53  p.m. 
196 


Lord  Chief  Justice's   Summing  Up. 

Lord  Chief  Justice 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — There  is  gome  request  about  a  map.  There 
is  no  map  of  Ireland  that  has  been  proved  in  the  case  except  the  one  to 
which  Colonel  Gordon  deposed. 

Mr.  BODKIN — Except  the  one  which  is  in  pieces. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  jury  would  like  to  see  the  original  code 
found  and  an  authentic  specimen  of  the  initials  and  signature  of  the 
prisoner.  None  such  has  been  proved.  The  original  code,  of  course, 
they  can  have.  That  we  will  send  in  to  them.  They  also  ask  for  an 
original  copy  of  the  circular  posted  at  Limburg  Camp,  but  I  understand 
that  was  not  proved. 

Mr.  ARTEMUS  JONES — No. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  think  there  is  a  specimen  of  the  signature 
and  handwriting  of  the  prisoner,  the  letter  written  when  he  received  his 
knighthood,  exhibit  32. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — That  is  quite  true.  I  think  it  is  better  not 
to  put  it  in.  I  think  really  what  they  want  is  the  initials).  One  sees 
why  they  may  have  been  asking  for  it.  I  think  it  better  to  treat  it  that 
there  is  no  evidence  of  it  and  leave  it  there.  The  original  code,  exhibit  18, 
shall  be  sent  in,  and  also  the  map. 

At  a  later  stage, 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — The  jury  have  asked  for  a  copy  of  the 
indictment,  which  we  will  send  them,  and  they  also  ask  for  a  copy  of  the 
evidence,  but  we  do  not  propose  to  send  that. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — If  your  lordship  pleases. 

The  jury  returned  into  Court  at  3.48. 

The  KING'S  CORONER — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  will  you  answer  to  your 
names  ? 

The  names  of  the  jury  were  called  over. 

The  KING'S  CORONER — Are  you  agreed  upon  your  verdict? 

The  FOREMAN  OF  THE  JURY — We  are. 

The  KING'S  CORONER — How  say  you;  do  you  find  the  prisoner,  Sir 
Roger  David  Casement,  guilty  or  not  guilty  of  the  high  treason  whereof  he 
stands  indicted? 

The  FOREMAN  OF  THE  JURY — Guilty. 

The  KING'S  CORONER — You  find  Sir  Roger  David  Casement  guilty  of 
high  treason,  and  is  that  the  verdict  of  you  all? 

The  FOREMAN  OF  THE  JURY — Yes. 

The  KING'S  CORONER — Sir  Roger  David  Casement,  you  stand  convicted 
of  high  treason.  What  have  you  to  say  for  yourself  why  the  Court  should 
not  pass  sentence  and  judgment  upon  you  to  die  according  to  law? 

The  PRISONER — My  Lord  Chief  Justice,  as  I  wish  to  reach  a  much  wider 
audience  than  I  see  before  me  here,  I  intended  to  read  all  that  I  propose  to 
say.  What  I  shall  read  now  is  something  I  wrote  more  than  twenty  days 
ago.  I  may  say,  my  lord,  at  once,  that  I  protest  against  the  jurisdiction 

197 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Sir  Roger  Casement 

of  this  Court  in  my  case  on  this  charge,  and  the  argument  that  I  am  now 
going  to  read  is  addressed  not  to  this  Court,  but  to  my  own  countrymen. 

There  is  an  objection,  possibly  not  good  in  law,  but  surely  good  on 
moral  grounds,  against  the  application  to  me  here  of  this  old  English 
statute,  565  years  old,  that  seeks  to  deprive  an  Irishman  to-day  of  life 
and  honour,  not  for  "adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,"  but  for  adhering 
to  his  own  people. 

When  this  statute  was  passed,  in  1351,  what  was  the  state  of  men's 
minds  on  the  question  of  a  far  higher  allegiance — that  of  a  man  to  God 
and  His  kingdom?  The  law  of  that  day  did  not  permit  a  man  to  forsake 
his  church  or  deny  his  God  save  with  his  life.  The  "  heretic  "  then  had  the 
same  doom  as  the  "  traitor/' 

To-day  a  man  may  forswear  God  and  His  heavenly  kingdom  without 
fear  or  penalty,  all  earlier  statutes  having  gone  the  way  of  Nero's  Edicts 
against  the  Christians,  but  that  Constitutional  phantom,  "The  King,"  can 
still  dig  up  from  the  dungeons  and  torture  chambers  of  the  Dark  Ages  a 
law  that  takes  a  man's  life  and  limb  for  an  exercise  of  conscience. 

If  true  religion  rests  on  love,  it  is  equally  true  that  loyalty  rests  on 
love.  The  law  I  am  charged  under  has  no  parentage  in  love  and  claims 
the  allegiance  of  to-day  on  the  ignorance  and  blindness  of  the  past. 

I  am  being  tried,  in  truth,  not  by  my  peers  of  the  live  present,  but 
by  the  peers  of  the  dead  past;  not  by  the  civilisation  of  the  twentieth 
century,  but  by  the  brutality  of  the  fourteenth ;  not  even  by  a  statute 
framed  in  the  language  of  an  enemy  land — so  antiquated  is  the  law  that 
must  be  sought  to-day  to  slay  an  Irishman,  whose  offence  is  that  he  puts 
Ireland  first. 

Loyalty  is  a  sentiment,  not  a  law.  It  rests  on  love,  not  on  restraint. 
The  Government  of  Ireland  by  England  rests  on  restraint  and  not  on 
law ;  and  since  it  demands  no  love  it  can  evoke  no  loyalty. 

But  this  statute  is  more  absurd  even  than  it  is  antiquated ;  and  if  it  is 
potent  to  hang  one  Irishman,  it  is  still  more  potent  to  gibbet  all  Englishmen. 

Edward  III.  was  King  not  only  of  the  realm  of  England,  but  also  of 
the  realm  of  France,  and  he  was  not  King  of  Ireland.  Yet  his  dead  hand 
to-day  may  pull  the  noose  around  the  Irishman's  neck  whose  Sovereign 
he  was  not,  but  it  can  strain  no  strand  around  the  Frenchman's  throat 
whose  Sovereign  he  was.  For  centuries  the  successors  of  Edward  III. 
claimed  to  be  Kings  of  France,  and  quartered  the  arms  of  France  on  their 
royal  shield  down  to  the  Union  with  Ireland  on  1st  January,  1801. 
Throughout  these  hundreds  of  years  these  "  Kings  of  France  "  were  con- 
stantly at  war  with  their  realm  of  France  and  their  French  subjects,  who 
should  have  gone  from  birth  to  death  with  an  obvious  fear  of 
treason  before  their  eyes.  But  did  they?  Did  the  "Kings  of  France" 
resident  here  at  Windsor  or  in  the  Tower  of  London,  hang,  draw,  and 
quarter  as  a  traitor  every  Frenchman  for  400  years  who  fell  into  their 
hands  with  arms  in  his  hand?  On  the  contrary,  they  received  embassies 
of  these  traitors,  presents  from  these  traitors,  even  knighthood  itself 
at  the  hands  of  these  traitors,  feasted  with  them,  tilted  with  them,  fought 
with  them — but  did  not  assassinate  them  by  law.  Judicial  assassination 
to-day  is  reserved  only  for  one  race  of  the  King's  subjects,  for  Irishmen; 
for  those  who  cannot  forget  their  allegiance  to  the  realm  of  Ireland. 
198 


The  Prisoner's  Speech. 

Sir  Roger  Casement 

The  Kings  of  England  as  such  had  no  rights  in  Ireland  up  to  the  time 
of  Henry  VIII. ,  save  such  as  rested  on  compact  and  mutual  obligation 
entered  between  them  and  certain  princes,  chiefs,  and  lord®  of  Ireland.  This 
form  of  legal  right,  such  as  it  was,  gave  no  King  of  England  lawful  power 
to  impeach  an  Irishman  for  high  treason  under  this  statute  of  King 
Edward  III.  of  England  until  an  Irish  Act,  known  as  Poyning's  Law,  the 
10th  of  Henry  VII.,  was  passed  in  1494  at  Drogheda,  by  the  Parliament 
of  the  Pale  in  Ireland,  and  enacted  as  law  in  that  part  of  Ireland.  But  if 
by  Poyning's  Law  an  Irishman  of  the  Pale  could  be  indicted  for  high 
treason  under  this  Act,  he  could  be  indicted  only  in  one  way  and  before  one 
tribunal — by  the  laws  of  the  realm  of  Ireland  and  in  Ireland.  The  very- 
law  of  Poyning's,  which,  I  believe,  applies  this  statute  of  Edward  III.  to 
Ireland,  enacted  also  for  the  Irishman's  defence,  "  All  those  laws  by  which 
"  England  claims  her  liberty."  And  what  is  the  fundamental  charter 
of  an  Englishman's  liberty?  That  he  shall  be  tried  by  his  peers.  With  all 
respect  I  assert  this  Court  is  to  me,  an  Irishman,  not  a  jury  of  my  peers 
to  try  me  in  this  vital  issue,  for  it  is  patent  to  every  man  of  conscience 
that  I  have  a  right,  an  indefeasible  right,  if  tried  at  all,  under  this  statute 
of  high  treason,  to  be  tried  in  Ireland,  before  an  Irish  Court  and  by  an 
Irish  jury.  This  Court,  this  jury,  the  public  opinion  of  this  country, 
England,  cannot  but  be  prejudiced  in  varying  degree  against  me,  most  of 
all  in  time  of  war.  I  did  not  land  in  England;  I  landed  in  Ireland.  It 
was  to  Ireland  I  came;  to  Ireland  I  wanted  to  come;  and  the  last  place 
I  desired  to  land  in  was  England.  But  for  the  Attorney- General  of  England 
there  is  only  "  England  " — there  is  no  Ireland,  there  is  only  the  law  of 
England — no  right  of  Ireland ;  the  liberty  of  Ireland  and  of  Irishmen  is  to 
be  judged  by  the  power  of  England.  Yet  for  me,  the  Irish  outlaw,  there 
is  a  land  of  Ireland,  a  right  of  Ireland,  and  a  charter  for  all  Irishmen  to 
appeal  to,  in  the  last  resort,  a  charter  that  even  the  very  statutes  of 
England  itself  cannot  deprive  us  of — nay,  more,  a  charter  that  Englishmen 
themselves  assert  as  the  fundamental  bond  of  law  that  connects  the  two 
kingdoms.  This  charge  of  high  treason  involves  a  moral  responsibility, 
as  the  very  terms  of  the  indictment  against  myself  recite,  inasmuch  as  I 
committed  the  acts  I  am  charged  with,  to  the  "evil  example  of  others  in 
"the  like  case."  What  was  this  "evil  example"  I  set  to  others  in  "the 
"like  case,"  and  who  were  these  others?  The  "evil  example"  charged 
is  that  I  asserted  the  rights  of  my  own  country,  and  the  "  others "  I 
appealed  to  to  aid  my  endeavour  were  my  own  countrymen.  The  example 
was  given  not  to  Englishmen,  but  to  Irishmen,  and  the  "  like  case"  can 
never  arise  in  England,  but  only  in  Ireland.  To  Englishmen  I  set  no  evil 
example,  for  I  made  no  appeal  to  them.  I  asked  no  Englishman  to  help 
me.  I  asked  Irishmen  to  fight  for  their  rights.  The  "evil  example" 
was  only  to  other  Irishmen  who  might  come  after  me,  and  in  "  like  case  " 
seek  to  do  as  I  did.  How,  then,  since  neither  my  example  nor  my  appeal 
was  addressed  to  Englishmen,  can  I  be  rightfully  tried  by  them? 

If  I  did  wrong  in  making  that  appeal  to  Irishmen  to  join  with  me  in 
an  effort  to  fight  for  Ireland,  it  is  by  Irishmen,  and  by  them  alone,  I  can  be 
rightfully  judged.  From  this  Court  and  its  jurisdiction  I  appeal  to  those 
I  am  alleged  to  have  wronged,  and  to  those  I  am  alleged  to  have  injured 
by  my  "  evil  example,"  and  claim  that  they  alone  are  competent  to  decide 

199 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Sir  Roger  Casement 

my  guilt  or  my  innocence.  If  they  find  me  guilty,  the  statute  may  affix 
the  penalty,  but  the  statute  does  not  override  or  annul  my  right  to  seek 
judgment  at  their  hands. 

This  is  so  fundamental  a  right,  so  natural  a  right,  so  obvious  a  right, 
that  it  is  clear  the  Crown  were  aware  of  it  when  they  brought  me  by  force 
and  by  stealth  from  Ireland  to  this  country.  It  was  not  I  who  landed  in 
England,  but  the  Crown  who  dragged  me  here,  away  from  my  own 
country  to  which  I  had  turned  with  a  price  upon  my  head,  away  from 
my  own  countrymen  whose  loyalty  is  not  in  doubt,  and  safe  from  the 
judgment  of  my  peers  whose  judgment  I  do  not  shrink  from.  I  admit  no 
other  judgment  but  theirs.  I  accept  no  verdict  save  at  their  hands.  I 
assert  from  this  dock  that  I  am  being  tried  here,  not  because  it  is  just, 
but  because  it  is  unjust.  Place  me  before  a  jury  of  my  own  countrymen, 
be  it  Protestant  or  Catholic,  Unionist  or  Nationalist,  Sinn  Feineach  or 
Orangemen,  and  I  shall  accept  the  verdict  and  bow  to  the  statute  and 
all  its  penalties.  But  I  shall  accept  no  meaner  finding  against  me  than 
that  of  those  whose  loyalty  I  endanger  by  my  example  and  to  whom  alone 
I  made  appeal.  If  they  adjudge  me  guilty,  then  guilty  I  am.  It  is  not  I 
who  am  afraid  of  their  verdict;  it  is  the  Crown.  If  this  be  not  so,  why 
fear  the  test?  I  fear  it  not.  I  demand  it  as  my  right. 

That,  my  lord,  is  the  condemnation  of  English  rule,  of  English-made 
law,  of  English  Government  in  Ireland,  that  it  dare  not  rest  on  the  will 
of  the  Irish  people,  but  it  exists  in  defiance  of  their  will — that  it  is  a  rule 
derived  not  from  right,  but  from  conquest.  Conquest,  my  lord,  gives  no 
title,  and  if  it  exists  over  the  body,  it  fails  over  the  mind.  It  can  exert 
no  empire  over  men's  reason  and  judgment  and  affections;  and  it  is  from 
this,  law  of  conquest  without  title  to  the  reason,  judgment,  and  affection  of 
my  own  countrymen  that  I  appeal. 

My  lord,  I  beg  to  say  a  few  more  words.  As  I  say,  that  was  my 
opinion  arrived  at  many  days  ago  while  I  was  a  prisoner.  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  re-affirming  it  here,  and  I  hope  that  the  gentlemen  of  the 
pressi  who  did  not  hear  me  yesterday  may  have  heard  me  distinctly  to-day. 
I  wish  my  words  to  go  much  beyond  this  Court. 

I  would  add  that  the  generous  expressions  of  sympathy  extended  me 
from  many  quarters,  particularly  from  America,  have  touched  me  very 
much.  In  that  country,  as  in  my  own,  I  am  sure  my  motives  are  under- 
stood and  not  misjudged — for  the  achievement  of  their  liberties  has  been 
an  abiding  inspiration  to  Irishmen  and  to  all  men  elsewhere  rightly 
struggling  to  be  free  in  like  cause. 

My  Lord  Chief  Justice,  if  I  may  continue,  I  am  not  called  upon,  I 
conceive,  to  say  anything  in  answer  to  the  inquiry  your  lordship  has 
addressed  to  me  why  sentence  should  not  be  passed  upon  me.  Since  I 
do  not  admit  any  verdict  in  this  Court,  I  cannot,  my  lord,  admit  the 
fitness  of  the  sentence  that  of  necessity  must  follow  it  from  this  Court. 
I  hope  I  shall  be  acquitted  of  presumption  if  I  say  that  the  Court  I  see 
before  me  now  is  not  this  High  Court  of  Justice  of  England,  but  a  far 
greater,  a  far  higher,  a  far  older  assemblage  of  justices — that  of  the  people 
of  Ireland.  Since  in  the  acts  which  have  led  to  this  trial  it  was  the  people 
of  Ireland  I  sought  to  serve — and  them  alone — I  leave  my  judgment  and 
my  sentence  in  their  handa. 
200 


The  Prisoner's   Speech. 

Sir  Roger  Casement 

Let  me  pass  from  myself  and  my  own  fate  to  a  far  more  pressing, 
as  it  is  a  far  more  urgent  theme — not  the  fate  of  the  individual  Irishman 
who  may  have  tried  and  failed,  but  the  claims  and  the  fate  of  the  country 
that  has  not  failed.  Ireland  has.  outlived  the  failure  of  all  her  hopes — and 
yet  she  still  hopes.  Ireland  has  seen  her  sons — aye,  and  her  daughters 
too — suffer  from  generation  to  generation  always  for  the  same  cause, 
meeting  always  the  same  fate,  and  always  at  the  hands  of  the  same  power; 
and  always  a  fresh  generation  has  passed  on  to  withstand  the  same 
oppression.  For  if  English  authority  be  omnipotent — a  power,  as  Mr. 
Gladstone  phrased  it,  that  reaches  to  the  very  ends  of  the  earth — Irish 
hope  exceeds  the  dimensions  of  that  power,  excels  its  authority,  and  renews 
with  each  generation  the  claims  of  the  last.  The  cause  that  begets  this 
indomitable  persistency,  the  faculty  of  preserving  through  centuries  of 
misery  the  remembrance  of  lost  liberty,  this  surely  is  the  noblest  cause  men 
ever  strove  for,  ever  lived  for,  ever  died  for.  If  this  be  the  case  I  stand 
here  to-day  indicted  for,  and  convicted  of  sustaining,  then  I  stand  in  a 
goodly  company  and  a  right  noble  succession. 

My  counsel  has  referred  to  the  Ulster  Volunteer  movement,  and  I  will 
not  touch  at  length  upon  that  ground  save  only  to  say  this,  that  neither 
I  nor  any  of  the  leaders  of  the  Irish  Volunteers  who  were  founded  in 
Dublin  in  November,  1913,  had  quarrel  with  the  Ulster  Volunteers  as 
such,  who  were  born  a  year  earlier.  Our  movement  was  not  directed 
against  them,  but  against  the  men  who  misused  and  misdirected  the 
courage,  the  sincerity,  and  the  local  patriotism  of  the  men  of  the  north  of 
Ireland.  On  the  contrary,  we  welcomed  the  coming  of  the  Ulster  Volun- 
teers, even  while  we  deprecated  the  aims  and  intentions  of  those  English- 
men who  sought  to  pervert  to  an  English  party  use — to  the  mean  purposes 
of  their  own  bid  for  place  and  power  in  England — the  armed  activities  of 
simple  Irishmen.  We  aimed  at  winning  the  Ulster  Volunteers  to  the  cause 
of  a  united  Ireland.  We  aimed  at  uniting  all  Irishmen  in  a  natural  and 
national  bond  of  cohesion  based  on  mutual  self-respect.  Our  hope  was  a 
natural  one,  and  if  left  to  ourselves,  not  hard  to  accomplish.  If  external 
influences  of  disintegration  would  but  leave  us  alone,  we  were  sure  that 
Nature  itself  must  bring  us  together.  It  was  not  we,  the  Irish  Volunteers, 
who  broke  the  law,  but  a  British  party.  The  Government  had  permitted 
the  Ulster  Volunteers  to  be  armed  by  Englishmen,  to  threaten  not  merely 
an  English  party  in  its  hold  on  office,  but  to  threaten  that  party  through 
the  lives  and  blood  of  Irishmen.  The  battle  was  to  be  fought  in  Ireland 
in  order  that  the  political  "outs"  of  to-day  should  be  the  "ins"  of 
to-morrow  in  Great  Britain.  A  law  designed  for  the  benefit  of  Ireland 
was  to  be  met,  not  on  the  floor  of  Parliament,  where  the  fight  had 
indeed  been  won,  but  on  the  field  of  battle  much  nearer  home,  where 
the  armies  would  be  composed  of  Irishmen  slaying  each  other  for  some 
English  party  again;  and  the  British  Navy  would  be  the  chartered 
"  transports  "  that  were  to  bring  to  our  shores  a  numerous  assemblage  of 
military  and  ex-military  expert®  in  the  congenial  and  profitable  business  of 
holding  down  subject  populations  abroad.  Our  choice  lay  in  submitting 
to  foreign  lawlessness  or  resisting  it,  and  we  did  not  hesitate  to  choose. 
But  while  the  law  breakers  had  armed  their  would-be  agents  openly,  and 
had  been  permitted  to  arm  them  openly,  we  were  met  within  a  few  days 

201 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Sir  Roger  Casement 

of  the  founding  of  our  movement,  that  aimed  at  united  Ireland  from  within, 
by  Government  action  from  without  direct  against  our  obtaining  any  arms 
at  all.  The  manifesto  of  the  Irish  Volunteers,  promulgated  at  a  public 
meeting  in  Dublin  on  25th  November,  1913,  stated  with  sincerity  the 
aims  of  the  organisation  as  I  have  outlined  them.  If  the  aims  contained 
in  that  manifesto  were  a  threat  to  the  unity  of  the  British  Empire,  then 
so  much  the  worse  for  the  Empire.  An  Empire  that  can  only  be  held 
together  by  one  section  of  its  governing  population  perpetually  holding 
down  and  sowing  dissension  among  a  smaller  but  none  the  less  governing 
section,  must  have  some  canker  at  its  heart,  some  ruin  at  its  root.  The 
Government  that  permitted  the  arming  of  those  whose  leaders  declared 
that  Irish  national  unity  was  a  thing  that  should  be  opposed  by  force  of 
arms,  within  nine  days  of  the  issue  of  our  manifesto  of  goodwill  to  Irish- 
men of  every  creed  and  class,  took  steps  to  nullify  our  efforts  by  prohibiting 
the  import  of  all  arms  into  Ireland  as  if  it  had  been  a  hostile  and  blockaded 
coast.  And  this  proclamation  of  the  4th  December,  1913,  known  as  the 
Arms  Proclamation,  was  itself  based  on  an  illegal  interpretation  of  the 
law,  as  the  Chief  Secretary  has  now  publicly  confessed.  The  proclamation 
was  met  by  the  loyalists  of  Great  Britain  with  an  act  of  still  more  lawless 
defiance — an  act  of  widespread  gun-running  into  Ulster  that  was  denounced 
by  the  Lord  Chancellor  of  England  as  "  grossly  illegal  and  utterly  uncon- 
"  stitutional."  How  did  the  Irish  Volunteers  meet  the  incitements  of 
civil  war  that  were  uttered  by  the  party  of  law  and  order  in  England  when 
they  saw  the  prospect  of  deriving  political  profit  to  themselves  from  blood- 
shed among  Irishmen? 

I  can  answer  for  my  own  acts  and  speeches.  While  one  English 
party  was  responsible  for  preaching  a  doctrine  of  hatred  designed  to  bring 
about  civil  war  in  Ireland,  the  other,  and  that  the  party  in  power,  took 
no  active  steps  to  restrain  a  propaganda  that  found  its  advocates  in  the 
Army,  Navy,  and  Privy  Council — in  the  Houses  of  Parliament  and  in  the 
State  Church — a  propaganda  the  methods  of  whose  expression  were  so 
"  grossly  illegal  and  utterly  unconstitutional  "  that  even  the  Lord 
Chancellor  of  England  could  find  only  words  and  no  repressive  action  to 
apply  to  them.  Since  lawlessness  sat  in  high  places  in  England  and 
laughed  at  the  law  as  at  the  custodians  of  the  law,  what  wonder  was  it 
that  Irishmen  should  refuse  to  accept  the  verbal  protestations  of  an  English 
Lord  Chancellor  as  a  sufficient  safeguard  for  their  lives  and  their  liberties  1 
I  know  not  how  all  my  colleagues  on  the  Volunteer  Committee  in  Dublin 
reviewed  the  growing  menace,  but  those  with  whom  I  was  in  cloisest 
co-operation  redoubled,  in  face  of  these  threats  from  without,  our  efforts 
to  unite  all  Irishmen  from  within.  Our  appeals  were  made  to  Protestant 
and  Unionist  as  much  almost  as  to  Catholic  and  Nationalist  Irishmen. 
We  hoped  that  by  the  exhibition  of  affection  and  goodwill  on  our  part 
towards  our  political  opponents  in  Ireland  we  should  yet  succeed  in  winning 
them  from  the  side  of  an  English  party  whose  sole  interest  in  our  country 
lay  in  its  oppression  in  the  past,  and  in  the  present  in  its  degradation 
to  the  mean  and  narrow  needs  of  their  political  animosities.  It  is  true 
that  they  based  their  actions,  so  they  averred,  on  "  fears  for  the  Empire," 
and  on  a  very  diffuse  loyalty  that  took  in  all  the  peoples  of  the  Empire, 
202 


The  Prisoner's  Speech. 


Sir  Roger  Casement 

save  only  the  Irish.  That  blessed  word  "Empire  "  that  bears  so  para- 
doxical a  resemblance  to  charity !  For  if  charity  begins  at  home,  ' '  Empire  ' ' 
begins  in  other  men's  homes,  and  both  may  cover  a  multitude  of  sins.  I 
for  one  was  determined  that  Ireland  was  much  more  to  me  than  ' '  Empire, ' ' 
and  that  if  charity  begins  at  home  so  must  loyalty.  Since  arms  were 
so  necessary  to  make  our  organisation  a  reality,  and  to  give  to  the  minds 
of  Irishmen  menaced  with  the  most  outrageous  threats  a  sense  of  security, 
it  was  our  bounden  duty  to  get  arms  before  all  else.  I  decided  with 
this  end  in  view  to  go  to  America,  with  surely  a  better  right  to  appeal 
to  Irishmen  there  for  help  in  an  hour  of  great  national  trial  than  those 
envoys  of  "  Empire "  could  assert  for  their  week-end  descents  upon 
Ireland,  or  their  appeals  to  Germany.  If,  as  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man, the  present  Attorney- General,  asserted  in  a  speech  at  Manchester, 
Nationalists  would  neither  fight  for  Home  Rule  nor  pay  for  it,  it  was  our 
duty  to  show  him  that  we  knew  how  to  do  both.  Within  a  few  weeks 
of  my  arrival  in  the  States  the  fund  that  had  been  opened  to  secure 
arms  for  the  Volunteers  of  Ireland  amounted  to  many  thousands  of  pounds. 
In  every  case  the  money  subscribed,  whether  it  came  from  the  purse  of 
the  wealthy  man  or  the  still  readier  pocket  of  the  poor  man,  was  Irish 
gold. 

Then  came  the  war.  As  Mr.  Birrell  said  in  his  evidence  recently 
laid  before  the  Commission  of  Inquiry  into  the  causes  of  the  late  rebellion 
in  Ireland,  "  the  war  upset  all  our  calculations/7  It  upset  mine  no  less 
than  Mr.  Birrell' s,  and  put  an  end  to  my  mission  of  peaceful  effort  in 
America.  War  between  Great  Britain  and  Germany  meant,  as  I  believed, 
ruin  for  all  the  hopes  we  had  founded  on  the  enrolment  of  the  Irish 
Volunteers.  A  constitutional  movement  in  Ireland  is  never  very  far  from 
a  breach  of  the  constitution,  as  the  Loyalists  of  Ulster  had  been  so  eager 
to  show  us.  The  cause  is  not  far  to  seek.  A  constitution  to  be  main- 
tained intact  must  be  the  achievement  and  the  pride  of  the  people  them- 
selves; must  rest  on  their  own  free  will  and  on  their  own  determination 
to  sustain  it,  instead  of  being  something  resident  in  another  land  whose 
chief  representative  is  an  armed  force — armed  not  to  protect  the  popula- 
tion, but  to  hold  it  down.  We  had  seen  the  working  of  the  Irish  consti- 
tution in  the  refusal  of  the  army  of  occupation  at  the  Curragh  to  obey 
the  orders  of  the  Crown.  And  now  that  we  were  told  the  first  duty  of  an 
Irishman  was  to  enter  that  army,  in  return  for  a  promissory  note,  pay- 
able after  death — a  scrap  of  paper  that  might  or  might  not  be  redeemed, 
I  felt  over  there  in  America  that  my  first  duty  was  to  keep  Irishmen  at 
home  in  the  only  army  that  could  safeguard  our  national  existence.  If 
small  nationalities  were  to  be  the  pawns  in  this  game  of  embattled  giants, 
I  saw  no  reason  why  Ireland  should  shed  her  blood  in  any  cause  but  her 
own,  and  if  that  be  treason  beyond  the  seas  I  am  not  ashamed  to  avow 
it  or  to  answer  for  it  here  with  my  life.  And  when  we  had  the  doctrine 
of  Unionist  loyalty  at  last — "  Mausers  and  Kaisers  and  any  King  you 
"  like,"  and  I  have  heard  that  at  Hamburg,  not  far  from  Limburg  on 
the  Lahn — I  felt  I  needed  no  other  warrant  than  that  these  words  con- 
veyed— to  go  forth  an3  do  likewise.  The  difference  between  us  was  that 
the  Unionist  champions  chose  a  path  they  felt  would  lead  to  the  woolsack ; 

203 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Sir  Roger  Casement 

while  I  went  a  road  I  knew  must  lead  to  the  dock.  And  the  event  proves 
we  were  both  right.  The  difference  between  us  was  that  my  "  treason  " 
was  based  on  a  ruthless  sincerity  that  forced  me  to  attempt  in  time  and 
season  to  carry  out  in  action  what  I  fiaid  in  word — whereas  their  treason 
lay  in  verbal  incitements  that  they  knew  need  never  be  made  good  in 
their  bodies.  And  so,  I  am  prouder  to  stand  here  to-day  in  the  traitor's 
dock  to  answer  this  impeachment  than  to  fill  the  place  of  my  right  honour- 
able accusers. 

We  have  been  told,  we  have  been  aeked  to  hope,  that  after  this  war 
Ireland  will  get  Home  Rule,  as  a  reward  for  the  life  blood  shed  in  a  cause 
which  whoever  else  its  success  may  benefit  can  surely  not  benefit  Ireland. 
And  what  will  Home  Rule  be  in  return  for  what  its  vague  promise  has 
taken  and  still  hopes  to  take  away  from  Ireland?  It  is  not  necessary  to 
climb  the  painful  stairs  of  Irish  history — that  treadmill  of  a  nation  whose 
labours  are  as.  vain  for  her  own  uplifting  a>s  the  convict's  exertions  are 
for  his  redemption — to  review  the  long  list  of  British  promises  made  only 
to  be  broken — of  Irish  hopes  raised  only  to  be  dashed  to  the  ground. 
Home  Rule  when  it  comes,  if  come  it  does,  will  find  an  Ireland  drained  of 
all  that  is  vital  to  its  very  existence — unless  it  be  that  unquenchable  hope 
we  build  on  the  graves  of  the  dead.  We  are  told  that  if  Irishmen  go  by 
the  thousand  to  die,  not  for  Ireland,  but  for  Flanders,  for  Belgium,  for 
a  patch  of  sand  on  the  deserts  of  Mesopotamia,  or  a  rocky  trench  on  the 
heights  of  Gallipoli,  they  are  winning  self-government  for  Ireland.  But 
if  they  dare  to  lay  down  their  lives  on  their  native  soil,  if  they  dare  to 
dream  even  that  freedom  can  be  won  only  at  home  by  men  resolved  to 
fight  for  it  there,  then  they  are  traitors  to  their  country,  and  their  dream 
and  their  deaths  alike  are  phases  of  a  dishonourable  phantasy.  But 
history  is  not  so  recorded  in  other  lands.  In  Ireland  alone  in  this 
twentieth  century  is  loyalty  held  to  be  a  crime.  If  loyalty  be  something 
less  than  love  and  more  than  law,  then  we  have  had  enough  of  such  loyalty 
for  Ireland  or  Irishmen.  If  we  are  to  be  indicted  as  criminals,  to  be 
shot  as  murderers,  to  be  imprisoned  as  convicts  because  our  offence  is 
that  we  love  Ireland  more  than  we  value  our  lives,  then  I  know  not  what 
virtue  resides  in  any  offer  of  self-government  held  out  to  brave  men  on 
such  terms.  Self-government  is  our  right,  a  thing  born  in  us  at  birth; 
a  thing  no  more  to  be  doled  out  to  us  or  withheld  from  us  by  another 
people  than  the  right  to  life  itself — than  the  right  to  feel  the  sun  or 
«mell  the  flowers,  or  to  love  our  kind.  It  is  only  from  the  convict  these 
things  are  withheld  for  crime  committed  and  proven — and  Ireland  that 
has  wronged  no  man,  that  has  injured  no  land,  that  has  sought  no 
dominion  over  others — Ireland  is  treated  to-day  among  the  nations  of  the 
world  as  if  she  was  a  convicted  criminal.  If  it  be  treason  to  fight  against 
such  an  unnatural  fate  as  this,  then  I  am  proud  to  be  a  rebel,  and  shall 
cling  to  my  "  rebellion  "  with  the  last  drop  of  my  blood.  If  there  be 
no  right  of  rebellion  against  a  state  of  things  that  no  savage  tribe  would 
endure  without  resistance,  then  I  am  sure  that  it  is  better  for  men  to 
fight  and  die  without  right  than  to  live  in  such  a  state  of  right  as  this. 
Where  all  your  rights  become  only  an  accumulated  wrong;  where  men 
must  beg  with  bated  breath  for  leave  to  subsist  in  their  own  land,  to  think 
204 


The  Prisoner's  Speech. 

Sir  Roger  Casement 

their  own  thoughts,  to  sing  their  own  songs,  to  garner  the  fruits  of  their 
own  labours — and  even  while  they  beg,  to  see  things  inexorably  with- 
drawn from  them — then  surely  it  is  braver,  a  saner  and  a  truer  thing, 
to  be  a  rebel  in  act  and  deed  against  such  circumstances  as  these  than 
tamely  to  accept  it  as  the  natural  lot  of  men. 

My  lord,  I  have  done.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  wish  to  thank  you 
for  your  verdict.  I  hope  you  will  not  take  amiss  what  I  said,  or  think 
that  I  made  any  imputation  upon  your  truthfulness  or  your  integrity 
when  I  spoke  and  said  that  this  was  not  a  trial  by  my  peers.  I  main- 
tain that  I  have  a  natural  right  to  be  tried  in  that  natural  jurisdiction, 
Ireland,  my  own  country,  and  I  would  put  it  to  you,  how  would  you  feel 
in  the  converse  case,  or  rather  how  would  all  men  here  feel  in  the  converse 
case,  if  an  Englishman  had  landed  here  in  England  and  the  Crown  or  the 
Government,  for  its  own  purposes,  had  conveyed  him  secretly  from 
England  to  Ireland  under  a  false  name,  committed  him  to  prison  under 
a  false  name,  and  brought  him  before  a  tribunal  in  Ireland  under  a  statute 
which  they  knew  involved  a  trial  before  an  Irish  jury?  How  would  you 
feel  yourselves  as  Englishmen  if  that  man  was  to  be  submitted  to  trial  by 
jury  in  a  land  inflamed  against  him  and  believing  him  to  be  a  criminal, 
when  his  only  crime  was  that  he  had  cared  for  England  more  than  for 
Ireland  ? 

The  USHER — Oyez.  My  lords,  the  King's  Justices  do  strictly  charge 
and  command  all  manner  of  persons  to  keep  silence  whilst  sentence  of 
death  is  passing  upon  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  upon  pain  of  imprison- 
ment. 

The  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE — Sir  Roger  David  Casement,  you  have  been 
found  guilty  of  treason,  the  gravest  crime  known  to  the  Jaw,  and  upon 
evidence  which  in  our  opinion  is  conclusive  of  guilt.  Your  crime  was  that 
of  assisting  the  King's  enemies,  that  is  the  Empire  of  Germany,  during 
the  terrible  war  in  which  we  are  engaged.  The  duty  now  devolves  upon 
me  of  passing  sentence  upon  you,  and  it  is  that  you  be  taken  hence  to  a 
lawful  prison,  and  thence  to  a  place  of  execution,  and  that  you  be  there 
hanged  by  the  neck  until  you  be  dead.  And  the  Sheriffs  of  the  Counties 
of  London  and  Middlesex  are,  and  each  of  them  is,  hereby  charged  with 
the  execution  of  this  judgment,  and  may  the  Lord  have  mercy  on  your 
soul. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  AVORT — Amen  I 


205 


II.-THE    APPEAL. 


IN  THE  COURT  OF  CRIMINAL  APPEAL,  LONDON, 
MONDAY,   17TH  JULY,   1916, 

BEFORE 

MR.  JUSTICE  DARLING, 
MR.  JUSTICE  BRAY, 
MR.  JUSTICE  A.  T.  LAWRENCE, 
MR.  JUSTICE  SCRUTTON,  and 
MR.  JUSTICE  ATKIN. 


Counsel  for  the  Grown — 

THE    ATTORNEY -GENERAL    (The    Right    Hon.    Sir    Frederick 

Smith,   K.C,   M.P.), 
THE   SOLICITOR-GENERAL  (The  Right  Hon.   Sir  George  Cave, 

K.C.,  M.P.), 
MR.  A.  H.  BODKIN, 
MR.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS, 
MR.  G.  A.  H.  BRANSON, 

Instructed  by  SIR  CHARLES  W.  MATHEWS,  K.C.B., 
Director  of  Public  Prosecutions. 

Counsel  for  the  Appellant — 

MR.  A.  M.  SULLIVAN  (K.C.  and  Second  Serjeant  of  the  Irish 

Bar), 

MR.  T.  ARTEMUS  JONES, 
MR.  J.  H.  MORGAN, 

Instructed  by  MR.  G.  GAVAN  DUFFY,  assisted  by  MR. 
MICHAEL  FRANCIS  DOYLE,  of  the  American  Bar. 

207 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


First  Day— Monday,   17th  July,   1916. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — My  lords,  in  this  case  the  prisoner  was  indicted  under 
the  statute  of  Edward  III.,  the  offence  being  stated  in  the  following 
terms: — "Sir  Roger  David  Casement  is  charged  with  the  following 
"offence: — High  treason  by  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  elsewhere 
"  than  in  the  King's  realm — to  wit,  in  the  Empire  of  Germany — contrary 
"to  the  Treason  Act,  1351  (25  Edward  III.,  statute  5,  chapter  2)."  The 
matter  of  the  appeal,  my  lords,  will  involve  two  questions — first,  whether 
the  matter  described  in  the  charge  is  in  truth  an  offence  within  the  statute 
cited,  and  a  second  point  will  arise  as  to  whether  the  definition  of  the 
offence  of  adhering  given  by  my  lord  the  Chief  Justice  at  the  trial  at  the 
bar  was  an  accurate  definition  or  was  defective  as  an  instruction  to  the 

jury- 

My  lords,  I  propose  to  consider  first  of  all  the  state  of  affairs  at 
common  law  at  the  time  of  the  passing  of  the  Act  of  Edward  III.  If  I 
may  briefly  outline  my  argument,  which  I  am  afraid  will  occupy  a  little 
while,  as  the  case  is  of  much  importance,  I  propose  to  argue  that  the 
statute  of  Edward  III.  was  passed  for  the  purpose  of  limitation  of  legal 
decisions  that  were  cropping  up  and  extending  the  doctrine  of  treason 
at  the  time  of  the  statute;  that  it  dealt  only  with  treasons  that  were 
triable  at  the  time  at  common  law.  There  is  authority  that  the  statute 
was  to  be  declaratory  of  the  common  law.  I  propose  to  show  that 
at  the  time,  even  under  the  most  extending  construction  of  the  common  law 
then  prevalent,  which  the  statute  was  passed  to  prune  and  not  to  enlarge, 
under  no  circumstances  could  there  have  been  such  a  crime  as  that  described 
in  the  indictment  here,  namely,  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  elsewhere 
than  in  the  King's  realm.  I  intend,  on  the  construction  of  the  statute, 
to  submit  that  if  we  had  to  construe  this  statute  as  though  it  had  passed 
yesterday,  the  first  reading  of  it  would  convey  a  perfectly  clear  view  of 
the  provisions  of  the  statute  to  the  mind  of  everybody,  and  that  that 
clear  view  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  matter  charged  in  the  indictment 
being  an  offence  under  the  statute.  I  then  propose  to  show  how  there 
crept  into  text-books,  because  only  into  text-books  the  matter  originally 
crept,  an  error  with  reference  to  the  purview  of  the  statute;  I  think  I 
will  be  able  to  show  the  source  of  that  error  and  the  explanation  of  it. 
I  intend  to  show  from  the  statutory  development  of  the  law  of  treason, 
running  through  a,  very  great  number  of  statutes  since  the  time  of  Edward 
III.,  an  extraordinary  history  of  expansion  and  contraction  going  back 
again  and  again  to  the  statute  of  Edward  III.,  as  being  the  law  of  the  land, 
but  I  intend  to  submit  that  on  the  consideration  of  those  statutes  it  was 
perfectly  clear  that  the  statute  of  Edward  III.  itself  did  not  in  any  degree 
purport  to  legislate  for  any  territory  that  was  outside  the  King's  realm ; 
that  it  was  extended  beyond  the  realm  by  special  statutes,  and  that  these 
special  statutes  have  in  their  due  course  disappeared  ;  and  that  going  outside 
the  statute  itself,  which  is  all  that  is  charged  in  the  present  instance,  and 
208 


The  Hon.  Mr.  Justice  Darling-. 


Appeal  Proceedings. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


I  think  all  that  remains  owing  to  the  repeal  of  all  others,  that  statute 
itself  never  did  of  its  own  motion  extend  to  anything  done  outside  of  the 
realm,  and  that  its  extension  beyond  the  realm  was  statutory  extension, 
and  that  that  extension  has  disappeared  with  the  disappearance  of  the 
statutes  which  created  it. 

The  first  matter  to  be  considered  is  the  terms  of  the  statute,  because 
the  terms  of  the  statute  show  that  it  was  passed  with  reference  to  matters' 
theretofore  triable  by  common  law.  "  Whereas  divers  opinions  have  been 
"  before  this  time  in  what  case  treason  shall  be  said,  and  in  what  not,  the 
"  King  at  the  request  of  the  Lords  and  of  the  Commons,  hath  made  a 
"declaration  in  the  manner  as  hereafter  followeth;  that  is  to  say" — then 
we  ican  pass  on — "  or  if  a  man  do  levy  war  against  our  Lord  the  King 
"  in  his  realm,  or  be  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his  realm,  giving 
"to  them  aid  and  comfort,  in  the  realm  or  elsewhere,  and  thereof  be 
"probably  attainted."  I  have  passed  three  matters  which  do  not  arise  in 
the  present  instance.  The  first  important  matter  is  the  recital  that  "  divers 
"  opinions  have  been  before  this  time  in  what  case  treason  shall  be  said  and 
"  in  what  not."  I  would  have  your  lordships  bear  in  mind  that  at  the 
time  of  the  statute  there  were  at  least  four  different  codes  of  law  regulating 
the  affairs  of  subjects  within  the  realm  of  England,  and  some  of  these 
codes  of  law  extended  far  beyond  England.  The  common  law  I  hope  to 
show  was  purely  local,  dependent  in  its  essence  on  venue,  and  the  common 
law  could  have  cognisance  of  nothing  that  did  not  arise  within  the  body 
of  some  county;  there  are  statutes  subsequently  passed  to  enable  the 
common  law  to  deal  with  matters  that  have  not  arisen  within  the  bodies 
of  counties,  but  as  far  as  I  know  there  has  not  yet  been  cited  any  authority 
for  such  a  proposition  that  the  common  law  at  the  time  of  Edward  III. 
was  capable  of  informing  itself  of  something  amounting  to  a  transgression 
which  had  completely  taken  place  in  a  territory  that  was  not  in  a  body  of 
a  county,  which  was  the  foundation  of  the  jurisdiction  of  common  law. 

My  lords,  the  opinions  of  what  was  treason  and  what  was  not,  some  of 
them  we  can  trace.  The  opinion  that  compassing  the  King's  death  was 
treason  was  the  most  ancient  of  them.  Compassing  the  death  of  the  King 
went  back  probably  to  the"  reign  of  Alfred ;  it  was  certainly  an  ancient 
offence  at  the  time  of  the  statute.  In  the  year  1285  we  get  an  instance 
of  adhering,  and  a  typical  instance  of  adhering.  There  are  seven  or  eight 
others  in  the  reports,  and  they  are  all  of  the  same  type,  because  they  are 
all  cases  in  which  a  person  within  the  King's  peace  and  within  the  realm 
has  been  seeking  to  assist  enemies  of  the  King,  in  some  cases  within  the 
realm,  but  in  most  cases  outside  the  realm,  by  the  subject  utilising  his 
position  in  the  realm  to  give  information  and  to  send  intelligence,  or,  as 
we  see  from  statute®  later  on,  perhaps  even  send  material  aid  to  the  King's 
enemies  outside  the  realm,  but  the  offender  is  always  within  the  realm. 

The  first  case  I  mention  of  adhering — I  am  now  dealing  with  within 
the  realm — was  before  the  statute  was  passed.  I  have  a  typical  case  as 
to  adhering,  which  is  taken  from  the  documents  of  the  city  of  Oxford ;  they 
are  not  available  here  so  far  as  I  know.  I  am  quoting  from  the  extract 
of  them  that  is  set  out  in  the  History  of  English  Law,  by  Professor  Holds- 
worth,  where  he  cites  the  case  at  some  length  of  Nicholaus  de  Wautham, 
and  his  offence,  roughly,  was  as  follows: — In  that  case  the  offence  was — 
P  209 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


the  prefatory  averments  are  almost  identical  with  what  remained  for 
hundreds  of  years  afterwards — that  Nioholaus  de  Wautham  conspired  with 
Guy  de  Monteforti  and  his  brother,  and  Llewellyn  of  Wales,  an  enemy  of 
our  Lord  the  King,  and  that  he  did  come  to  the  King's  Council  or  Court 
to  privately  find  out  the  secrets  of  the  King  and  all  those  secrets  which 
he  could,  and  when  he  had  ascertained  them  he  conveyed  them  to  the 
King's  enemies' ;  and  it  says  that  he  was  one  of  the  adherents,  the  terms 
in  which  it  is  alleged  in  the  subsequent  indictments  for  adhering,  con- 
tinuing for  a  couple  of  hundred  years.  Strange  to  say,  in  the  second 
volume  of  Pollock  and  Maitland,  at  page  505,  your  lordships  will  find  the 
opinion  expressed  that  of  the  offences  mentioned  in  the  statute,  probably 
the  most  recent  in  the  development  of  the  law  of  treason,  was  levying  war 
against  the  King  in  his  realm.  That  provision,  my  lords,  and  the  limita- 
tion of  it  is  important  when  one  comes  to  consider  the  position  of  offences 
with  regard  to  which  the  statute  was  passed. 

My  lords,  at  the  time  of  the  statute  there  were  in  England  among  the 
great  landowners  and  nobles  a  number  of  persons  who  were  under  two 
allegiances,  one  in  England,   and,  in  respect  of  lands  which  they  exten- 
sively owned  in  France,  another  allegiance  in  France.       The  limitation  of 
levying  war,  and  I  submit  also  the  clear  limitation  of  adhering,  arose  from 
the  fact  that,  being  feudal  subjects  of  the  King  of  France  in  respect  of 
French  lands  and  of  the  King  of  England  in  respect  of  English  lands,  the 
barons  themselves  would  be  anxious  to  limit  the  decision   of  treason   in 
such  a  way  as  that  their  English  lands  should  not  be  forfeited  in  respect 
of  service  and  homage  rendered  in  respect  of  their  possessions  outside  the 
realm  rendered  to  the  King's  enemies.       At  page  460  of  the  first  volume 
of  Pollock  and  Maitland  there  is  this  passage,  "  The  territory  within  which, 
"  according  to  later  law,  subjects  would  be  born  to  the  King  of  England 
'  was  large;  under  Henry  II.  it  became  vast.       It  comprehended  Ireland; 
'  at  times  (to  say  the  least)  it  comprehended  Scotland ;    it  stretched  to 
1  the  Pyrenees.     Then,  again,  the  law  even  of  Bracton's  day  acknowledged 
'  that  a  man  might  be  a  subject  of  the  French  King  and  hold  land  in 
'  France,   and  yet  be  a   subject  of  the  English  King  and  hold  land  in 
'  England.        It  was  prepared  to  meet  the  case  of  a  war  between  the 
'  two  Kings ;   the  amphibious  baron  might  fight  in  person  for  his  liege 
'  lord,   but  he  must  also   siend  his  due   consignment   of  knights  to  the 
'  opposite  army.       In  generation  after  generation  a  Robert  Bruce  holds 
"  lands  on  both  sides  of  the  Scotch  border;  no  one  cares  to  remember  on 
"  which  side  he  was  born."       The  reference  to  Bracton  is  folio  427B.     It 
was  the  Parliament  that  was  seeking  to  have  a  definition  of  treason,  which, 
of  course,  at  that  time  was  very  largely  a  matter  affecting  title  to  property, 
and  developed,  indeed,  in  the  early  days  as  part  of  the  law  of  real  property. 
The  distinction  between  treason  and  felony  was,  as  we  all  know,  who 
should  get  the  lands  of  the  barons  confiscated,  whether  the  King,  who,  of 
course,   was  anxious  to  extend  everything  to  being  treason,   whether  it 
should  be  others  who  would  be  anxious  to  limit  the  cases  of  treason  within 
the  narrower  compass.       This  furnishes  an  instance  of  why  there  should 
be  special  mention  both  in  the  case  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  and 
of  levying  war,  and  a  limitation  that  it  should  be  within  the  realm,  other- 
wise bound  as  the  owner  of  land  in  France  would  be  bound  under  pain  of 
210 


Appeal  Proceedings. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


forfeiture  of  his  lands  in  France,  he  being  in  most  oases  a  legislator  in 
England,  bound  as  he  would  be  to  furnish  actual  military  service  to  the 
King  of  France,  under  whom  he  held  his  French  lands  as  a  condition  to 
retain  them,  he  would  forfeit  his  English  lands  if  that  amounted  to  treason 
with  reference  to  his  allegiance  to  the  English  King.  I  submit  that  it 
is  a  very  plain  reason  why  the  Parliament  would  be  most  anxious  to  see 
that  the  persons  who  very  largely  constituted  the  Parliament  should  be  put 
in  a  position  of  having  to  elect,  with  two  feudal  claims  upon  them,  which 
of  their  territories  they  should  forfeit  in  case  their  two  feudal  lords 
disagreed  and  went  to  war.  At  all  event®  there  is  no  doubt  whatever, 
I  submit,  that  the  limitation  of  levying  war  was  confined  to  within  the 
realm.  The  provisions  of  the  statute  have  been  re-enaoted  on  subsequent 
dates,  and  I  will  point  out  to  your  lordships  on  one  occasion,  and  on  one 
occasion  only,  was  the  levying  of  war  extended  to  without  the  realm,  and 
that  was  a  statute  of  Charles  II.,  and  for  a  brief  period.  One  of  the 
matters  that  will  have  to  be  considered  here  if  levying  war  waei  to  be  treason 
only  when  committed  within  the  realm,  is  why  should  mere  adherence  to 
another  person  without  the  levying  of  war  elsewhere  have  been  constituted 
treason,  when  the  actual  taking  up  of  arms  beside  him  would  not  have  been 
treason  within  the  appropriate  limit  of  the  statute? 

The  quotation  from  the  Oxford  City  documents  will  be  found  in  Pollock 
and  Maitland,  volume  ii.,  page  507,  at  the  bottom.  That  is  the  case  of 
adhering  I  was  reciting.  Now,  at  common  law,  both  before  and  after 
the  statute,  trial  had  to  proceed  according  to  a  process  which  was  so 
rigidly  settled  that  process  was  everything,  and  the  essence  of  common 
law,  the  foundation  of  common  law  was  venue.  It  is  most  important 
in  the  construction  of  the  statute  to  note  that  procedure  is  not  dealt  with, 
because  I  will  point  out  to  you  when  it  comes  subsequently  to  be  extended, 
as  the  statute  was  periodically  extended  to  operate  outside  the  confines  of 
the  realm,  procedure  was  always  looked  upon  in  the  statute,  and  hundreds 
of  years  afterwards  when  venue  was  loosening  in  civil  actions,  and  was* 
indeed  becoming  a  matter  that  might  be  alleged  falsely  and  not  contro- 
verted, nevertheless  you  find  that  in  criminal  matters  the  question  of  venue 
is  attended  to  whenever  there  is  statutory  enlargement  of  offence®  and 
bringing  them  outside  the  confines  of  the  realm  or  outside  the  body  of 
counties.  There  being  no  provision  in  the  statute,  the  question  at  once 
arises,  if  a,  statute  is  to  operate  outside  the  kingdom  how  is  the  statute 
to  be  put  into  operation?  Venues,  we  know,  went  back  certainly  to  the 
Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  which  are  in  1164,  where  we  get  the  essence 
of  venue,  and  the  essence  of  the  first  step  in  process  against  a  person 
against  whom  a  crime  is  subsequently  to  be  alleged.  We  find  all  through 
that  twelve  men  from  the  neighbourhood  of  the  occurrence  became  the 
standard  of  opinion  as  to  whether  a  man  isi  even  to  be  put  to  trial  or  not, 
and  as  late  as  35  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  6,  apparently  six  men  should 
come  actually  from  the  very  county  in  which  the  offence  had  taken  place. 
Your  lordships  will  find  in  Viner,  volume  xxi.,  page  3,  under  "  Trial," 
at  the  first  line  of  the  page,  "  If  an  act  be  to  be  done  all  beyond  sea,  it 
"  cannot  be  tried  in  England ;  but  where  part  is  to  be  done  in  England  and 
"  part  beyond  sea  it  may  be  tried  in  England."  In  the  same  volume, 
at  page  130,  under  "  Trial,"  you  find  a  suggestion  of  trying  crimes  com- 

211 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Mr.  Sullivan 

mitted  in  two  counties  in  either  county.  That,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
contrasts  with  the  opinion  of  Stephen,  that,  until  there  was  a  statute  of 
Edward,  crimes  that  were  not  committed  in  either  county  could  be  tried 
in  neither. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  DARLING — The  opinion  of  Sir  Fitzjames  Stephen? 

Mr.    SULLIVAN — Stephen's   Commentaries. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  DARLING — What  did  he  say? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — That  until  the  statute  was  passed,  at  common  law  a 
man  being  shot  in  one  county  and  traversing  the  boundary  and  dying  in 
another,  the  murder  not  being  completed  in  either,  it  was  possible  at 
common  law  the  murderer  should  escape  trial. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  DARLING — It  was  impossible.  Does  he  indicate  what  did 
become  of  him? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  should  say  he  did  it  again. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  DARLING — Did  he  always  commit  murder  on  the  edge  of 
the  county? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — As  a  matter  of  fact,  Viner  says  he  may  be  tried  in 
either  county.  That  is  what  I  referred  to  Viner  for  at  page  130. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  DARLING — Stephen  said  he  thinks  he  could  be  tried  in 
neither. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Till  the  statute  of  Edward  I.  was  passed,  a  very  early 
statute.  At  all  events,  as  we  know,  there  have  been  statutes  passed,  a 
long  series  going  back  to  Edward  I.,  dealing  with  crimes  committed  on 
the  borders  of  counties  or  in  more  than  one  county.  Your  lordship  knows 
with  regard  to  venue  there  are  a  large  number  of  venue  statutes  with 
regard  to  crimes  that  are  partially  committed  in  one  place  and  partially 
in  another.  They  are  very  ancient  statutes,  and  they  are  consistent  with 
the  fact  that  venue  was  originally  such  a  rigid  doctrine.  Viner,  of  course, 
is  writing  after  the  statute  had  cured  that,  and  he  may  be  expressing  the 
opinion  of  the  statute.  At  all  events,  they  were  triable  in  either  county 
eventually,  but  there  certainly  was  a  statute  passed  to  deal  with  it  at  a 
very  early  period,  and,  at  all  events,  undoubtedly  until  the  passing  of  the 
statute  there  was  difficulty  in  laying  a  venue,  and  venue  was  the  very 
essence  of  trial. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  DARLING — How  do  you  know  that  that  statute  did  not 
declare  the  common  law,  the  statute  which  made  the  crime  triable  in 
either  county? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — It  may  have  done  so;  I  cannot  say  that  I  know  it 
did  not;  I  do  not  seek  to  make  any  such  proposition,  but  at  the  same 
time  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  when  one  studies  the  relation  of  venue  to 
jurisdiction  under  the  old  common  law  to  see  how  he  could  be  indicted  in 
either  county,  because,  my  lord,  the  jurors  in  one  county  had  no  means 
of  informing  themselves  of  the  circumstances  under  which  the  blow  was 
given,  and  the  jurors  in  the  other  county  had  no  means  of  informing  them- 
selves of  what  had  been  the  ultimate  consequence  of  the  blow. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  DARLING — Are  you  speaking  of  the  time  before  there  were 
witnesses,  when  the  jurors  were  the  witnesses? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Yes. 

Mr.   JUSTICE  DARLING — Or  of  a  time  when  jurors  were  jurors,   and 
witnesses  could  be  summoned  before  them? 
212 


Appeal   Proceedings. 


Mr.  Sullivan 


Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  will  take  the  time  when  the  jurors  were  the  persons 
who  first  presented  and  subsequently  tried  on  their  own  presentment ;  they 
were  the  witnesses  and  the  proof. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  DARLING — Once  you  arrive  at  the  time  when  the  juror  was 
a  juror  and  witnesses  were  summoned,  do  you  mean  there  was  no  means 
even  in  early  days  of  getting  witnesses  from  Worcestershire,  say,  to  come 
before  a  jury  of  Herefordshire? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — No,  I  think  that  would  be  the  cure.  Once  you  get 
to  the  development  of  the  witness  of  something  that  had  happened  in  the 
county,  once  the  law  developed  into  the  practice  of  outside  witnesses 
apart  from  the  neighbours,  once  you  ha.ve  jurisdiction  to  inquire  into 
something  having  happened  that  was  against  the  peace,  that  was  within 
the  county,  then  there  came  the  inquisition,  and  they  might  inform  them- 
selvesi  of  what  had  been  the  ultimate  result.  The  essential  thing  for 
inquiry  in  either  county  must  still  be  that  something  had  happened  in 
the  county  which  gave  the  juror  a  right  to  inquire.  You  are  still  within 
venue ;  whether,  having  your  venue,  your  inquiry  may  go  into  facts  outside 
the  venue  is  a  different  matter.  I  am  only  dwelling  on  this  so  as  to  show 
that  when  you  get  outside  the  body  of  the  county,  at  the  time  of 
Edward  I.,  I  submit  it  was  impossible  that  any  county  could  inform  itself 
of  a  matter  which  had  happened  completely  outside  the  body  of  any  part 
of  His  Majesty's  realm. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  DARLING — Perhaps  you  have  not  arrived  at  it,  but,  at  all 
events,  you  have  not  mentioned  that  people  were  tried  by  Commissioners. 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  am  coming  to  them.  The  Commissioners  were 
merely  a  development.  That  will  be  a  part  of  my  argument  upon  which 
I  shall  rely  most  strongly,  that  the  statutes  proceeded  to  provide  for 
offences  outside  the  realm,  and  with  the  same  provisions  making  offences 
outside  the  realm,  the  statutes,  conscious  of  the  incompetence  of  common 
law  to  deal  with  them,  provided  statutory  tribunals  to  deal  with  them; 
the  same  statute  which  extended  treason  outside  the  realm  also  provided 
for  ite  trial  within. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  DARLING — Do  you  mean  the  statute  of  Henry  VII I.? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  26  Henry  VIII.,  not  35  Henry  VIII.  35  Henry 
VIII.  was  passed  to  explain  doubts  that  had  arisen  on  the  previous  statute 
of  26  Henry  VIII.  At  page  178,  volume  xxi.,  of  Viner,  under  "  Trial  " — 
"  If  a  man  be  stricken  upon  the  high  sea,  and  dies  of  the  same  stroke 
"upon  the  land,  this  cannot  be  inquired  of  by  the  common  law,  because 
"  no  venue  can  come  from  the  place  where  the  stroke  was  given  (though 
"  it  were  within  the  sea  pertaining  to  the  realm  of  England,  and  within 
"  the  ligeanoe  of  the  King),  because  it  is  not  within  any  of  the  counties 
"  of  the  realm;  neither  can  the  admiral  hear  and  determine  this  murder, 
"  because  though  the  stroke  was  within  his  jurisdiction,  yet  the  death  was 
' '  infra  corpus  comitatus,  whereof  he  cannot  inquire ;  neither  is  it  within 
"the  statute  of  26  Henry  VIII.,  because  the  murder  was  not  committed 
"  on  the  sea.  But  by  the  Act  of  13  Richard  II.  the  constable  and 
"  marshal  may  hear  and  determine  the  same."  That  emphasises  what 
I  was  saying  with  regard  to  the  statute  referring  to  offences  at  common 
law  only,  because  as  we  know  both  the  constable  and  marshal  and  the 

213 


Sir  Roger  Casement. 

Mr.  Sullivan 
admiral  had  jurisdiction  outside  the  realm  of  England  altogether  in  other 


Mr.  JUSTICE  DARLING — Serjeant  Sullivan,  in  the  ease  you  put,  suppose 
neither  the  assizes  nor  the  admiral  could  investigate  this  case,  what  about 
the  coroner;  ought  not  he  to  inquire  where  the  man  died  and  how  he  came 
by  his  death? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — The  coroner  could  inquire,  no  doubt,  into  how  the 
man  died,  but,  the  coroner  being  also  shackled  by  his  jurisdiction,  I 
submit  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  he  could  not  hold  investigation  as  to  cir- 
cumstances that  arose  outside  the  body  of  the  county,  any  more  than  the 
common  law  could. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  A.  T.  LAWRENCE — What  is  the  authority  for  that? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — Viner — "  If  a  man  be  stricken  upon  the  high  sea,  and 
"  dies  of  the  same  stroke  upon  the  land,  this  cannot  be  inquired  of  by 
"  the  common  law,  because  no  venue  can  come  from  the  place  where  the 
' '  stroke  was  given  (though  it  were  within  the  sea  pertaining  to  the  realm 
"  of  England  and  within  the  ligeance  of  the  King)."  That  was  cured  by 
the  statute. 

Mr.  JUSTICE,  DARLING — Yes,  but  a  dying  declaration  made  by  a  man 
was  always  evidence.  Suppose  a  man  was  wounded  in  Herefordshire  and 
fled  into  Worcestershire  and  fell  dead,  but  before  dying  stated  that 
So-and-So  and  So-and-So  in  Herefordshire  struck  him  the  blow  of  which 
he  died,  could  not  good  evidence  be  given  before  .the  coroner  in  Worcester- 
shire? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — I  submit  not.  The  coroner  of  Worcestershire  did  not 
inquire  into  what  had  been  done  in  the  adjoining  county. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  DARLING — He  must  inquire  of  the  death  on  view  of  the 
body;  if  it  was  found  that  the  man  before  he  died  made  a  deposition 
which  said  So-and-So  and  So-and-So  half  a  mile  away  at  the  other  end 
of  the  village  in  the  other  county  struck  him  the  blow,  do  you  say  that 
that  evidence  could  not  have  been  given? 

Mr.  SULLIVAN — There  certainly  was  a  period  in  which  it  could  not  be. 
The  evidence  must  be  given  just  as  anything  might  take  place,  but  the 
Coroner's  Court  could  express  no  opinion  upon  whether  the  evidence  with, 
regard  to  an  act  done  out